Skip Navigation

This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to My Personal Archive
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow Search for citing articles in:
ISI Web of Science (37)
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by WHITMAN, S.
Right arrow Articles by PHILLIPS, C. W
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by WHITMAN, S.
Right arrow Articles by PHILLIPS, C. W
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us  
What's this?

© 1993 Oxford University Press

research-article

Do Chart Reviews and Interviews Provide the Same Information about Breast and Cervical Cancer Screening?

STEVEN WHITMAN*, LORETTA LACEY**, DAVID ANSELL{dagger}, EDWIN H CHEN{dagger}, JADE DELL* and CLYDE W PHILLIPS{ddagger}

* Epidemiology Program, Chicago Department of Health Chicago, IL, USA
** Community Health Sciences Program, School of Public Health, University of Illinois Chicago, IL, USA
{dagger} Department of Medicine, Cook County Hospital Chicago, IL, USA
{ddagger} Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, School of Public Health, University of Illinois Chicago, IL, USA

The National Cancer Institute of the United States has set a goal for the year 2000 that 80–90% of eligible women should have a Pap smear every 3 years and that 80% of women aged 50–70 should receive an annual breast examina tion and mammogram. Very few studies have examined how we might best measure our progress towards this goal. Specifically, should we employ interview data or data derived from medical records? To respond to this question, data were gathered at two different public health clinics in poor areas of Chicago using both techniques. The interviews estimated significantly higher proportions of women receiving Pap smears, breast examinations, and mammograms in the previous 12-month interval than were estimated from randomly selected medical records. A review of the literature suggests the same pattern exists when other studies using these two data gathering processes are compared. We are thus left with a serious problem, one that must be resolved before we will be able to fully assess our progress in in creasing breast and cervical cancer screening.

Received 1 November 1992


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us    What's this?


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
 Cancer Epidemiol. Biomarkers Prev.Home page
G. H. Rauscher, T. P. Johnson, Y. I. Cho, and J. A. Walk
Accuracy of Self-Reported Cancer-Screening Histories: A Meta-analysis
Cancer Epidemiol. Biomarkers Prev., April 1, 2008; 17(4): 748 - 757.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Cancer Epidemiol. Biomarkers Prev.Home page
R. P. Insinga, A. G. Glass, and B. B. Rush
Pap Screening in a U.S. Health Plan
Cancer Epidemiol. Biomarkers Prev., March 1, 2004; 13(3): 355 - 360.
[Abstract] [Full Text]

Home page
 Am J EpidemiolHome page
S. A. Norman, A. R. Localio, L. Zhou, L. Bernstein, R. J. Coates, E. W. Flagg, P. A. Marchbanks, K. E. Malone, L. K. Weiss, N. C. Lee, et al.
Validation of Self-reported Screening Mammography Histories among Women with and without Breast Cancer
Am. J. Epidemiol., August 1, 2003; 158(3): 264 - 271.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 JAMAHome page
B. E. Sirovich, L. M. Schwartz, and S. Woloshin
Screening Men for Prostate and Colorectal Cancer in the United States: Does Practice Reflect the Evidence?
JAMA, March 19, 2003; 289(11): 1414 - 1420.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Eval Health ProfHome page
J. B. Fowles, E. Fowler, C. Craft, and C. E. McCoy
Comparing Claims Data and Self-Reported Data with the Medical Record for Pap Smear Rates
Eval Health Prof, September 1, 1997; 20(3): 324 - 342.
[Abstract] [PDF]


Disclaimer:
Please note that abstracts for content published before 1996 were created through digital scanning and may therefore not exactly replicate the text of the original print issues. All efforts have been made to ensure accuracy, but the Publisher will not be held responsible for any remaining inaccuracies. If you require any further clarification, please contact our Customer Services Department.