The Impact of Rurality and Disadvantage on the Diagnostic Interval for Breast Cancer in a Large Population-Based Study of 3202 Women in Queensland, Australia
Published in
International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, November 2016
Delays in diagnosing breast cancer (BC) can lead to poorer outcomes. We investigated factors related to the diagnostic interval in a population-based cohort of 3202 women diagnosed with BC in Queensland, Australia. Interviews ascertained method of detection and dates of medical/procedural appointments, and clinical information was obtained from medical records. Time intervals were calculated from self-recognition of symptoms (symptom-detected) or mammogram (screen-detected) to diagnosis (diagnostic interval (DI)). The cohort included 1560 women with symptom-detected and 1642 with screen-detected BC. Symptom-detected women had higher odds of DI of >60 days if they were Indigenous (OR = 3.12, 95% CI = 1.40, 6.98); lived in outer regional (OR = 1.50, 95% CI = 1.09, 2.06) or remote locations (OR = 2.46, 95% CI = 1.39, 4.38); or presented with a "non-lump" symptom (OR = 1.84, 95% CI = 1.43, 2.36). For screen-detected BC, women who were Indigenous (OR = 2.36, 95% CI = 1.03, 5.80); lived in remote locations (OR = 2.35, 95% CI = 1.24, 4.44); or disadvantaged areas (OR = 1.69, 95% CI = 1.17, 2.43) and attended a public screening facility (OR = 2.10, 95% CI = 1.40, 3.17) had higher odds of DI > 30 days. Our study indicates a disadvantage in terms of DI for rural, disadvantaged and Indigenous women. Difficulties in accessing primary care and diagnostic services are evident. There is a need to identify and implement an efficient and effective model of care to minimize avoidable longer diagnostic intervals.
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 31 October 2019.
All research outputs
#9,515,628
of 27,781,301 outputs
Outputs from International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health
#14,151
of 33,110 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#142,490
of 414,107 outputs
Outputs of similar age from International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health
#98
of 214 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 27,781,301 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 42nd percentile – i.e., 42% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 33,110 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 15.3. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 52% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 414,107 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 49th percentile – i.e., 49% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 214 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 51% of its contemporaries.
