Lack of validity of self-reported mammography data

Author:

Levine Robert S,Kilbourne Barbara J,Sanderson Maureen,Fadden Mary K,Pisu Maria,Salemi Jason L,Mejia de Grubb Maria Carmenza,O’Hara Heather,Husaini Baqar A,Zoorob Roget J,Hennekens Charles H

Abstract

This qualitative literature review aimed to describe the totality of peer-reviewed scientific evidence from 1990 to 2017 concerning validity of self-reported mammography. This review included articles about mammography containing the words accuracy, validity, specificity, sensitivity, reliability or reproducibility; titles containing self-report, recall or patient reports, and breast or ‘mammo’; and references of identified citations focusing on evaluation of 2-year self-reports. Of 45 publications meeting the eligibility criteria, 2 conducted in 1993 and 1995 at health maintenance organisations in Western USA which primarily served highly educated whites provided support for self-reports of mammography over 2 years. Methodological concerns about validity of self-reports included (1) telescoping, (2) biased overestimates particularly among black women, (3) failure to distinguish screening and diagnostic mammography, and (4) failure to address episodic versus consistent mammography use. The current totality of evidence supports the need for research to reconsider the validity of self-reported mammography data as well as the feasibility of alternative surveillance data sources to achieve the goals of the Healthy People Initiative.

Funder

U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, National Institutes of Health, National Institute on Minority Health and Health Disparities

Publisher

BMJ

Subject

Family Practice,Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health

Reference60 articles.

1. Anon , 2018. About healthy people. Available: https://www.healthypeople.gov/2020/About-Healthy-People [Accessed 7 Feb 2018].

2. C-17 , 2018. Increase the proportion of women who receive a breast cancer screening based on the most recent guidelines. Available: https://www.healthypeople.gov/node/4055/data_details [Accessed 11 Dec 2018].

3. Anon , 2018. About the national health interview survey. Available: https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/nhis/about_nhis.htm [Accessed 12 Dec 2018].

4. National Health Interview Survey , 2017. NHIS Questionnaire – Sample Adult Access to Health Care & Utilization. Available: file:///E:/NHIS%20Questionaire.pdf [Accessed 01 Jun 2018].

5. Misclassification of survey responses and black-white disparity in mammography use, behavioral risk factor surveillance system, 1995-2006;Njai;Prev Chronic Dis,2011

同舟云学术

1.学者识别学者识别

2.学术分析学术分析

3.人才评估人才评估

"同舟云学术"是以全球学者为主线,采集、加工和组织学术论文而形成的新型学术文献查询和分析系统,可以对全球学者进行文献检索和人才价值评估。用户可以通过关注某些学科领域的顶尖人物而持续追踪该领域的学科进展和研究前沿。经过近期的数据扩容,当前同舟云学术共收录了国内外主流学术期刊6万余种,收集的期刊论文及会议论文总量共计约1.5亿篇,并以每天添加12000余篇中外论文的速度递增。我们也可以为用户提供个性化、定制化的学者数据。欢迎来电咨询!咨询电话:010-8811{复制后删除}0370

www.globalauthorid.com

TOP

Copyright © 2019-2024 北京同舟云网络信息技术有限公司
京公网安备11010802033243号  京ICP备18003416号-3