Determinants of Patient Compliance in Mammographic Follow-Up Notification Letters

Abstract

Patient compliance with recommended interval follow-up studies following a mammographic screening result is a critical public health challenge with direct implications for early breast cancer detection and patient outcomes. When a patient is notified of a finding that warrants a six-month follow-up imaging study, the written notification letter serves as the primary — and often sole — interface between the clinical recommendation and patient action. Despite the clinical imperative of such follow-up, compliance rates remain suboptimal across populations and practice settings, with documented inadequate follow-up rates consistently identified in the literature across multiple practice environments.

This paper examines the three most consequential determinants of patient compliance as mediated through the content and construction of mammographic notification letters: (1) health literacy alignment and plain language communication; (2) emotional tone calibration and psychological framing; and (3) the specificity and actionability of the clinical call to action. Each determinant is analyzed through the lens of peer-reviewed empirical literature spanning health communication, behavioral psychology, patient navigation, and breast imaging outcomes research.

The synthesis of available evidence indicates that notification letters which integrate plain language principles, deliver emotionally balanced and patient-centered framing, and provide concrete, logistically actionable next steps are significantly associated with improved compliance rates. Implications for breast imaging program operations, regulatory compliance under the Mammography Quality Standards Act (MQSA), and patient navigation practice are discussed.

Keywords: mammography, patient notification, follow-up compliance, health literacy, health communication, breast imaging, interval follow-up, MQSA, BI-RADS®

---

I. Introduction

Mammographic screening occupies a foundational role in the early detection of breast cancer, a disease that remains the most commonly diagnosed malignancy among women in the United States and a leading cause of cancer mortality worldwide [1]. The clinical pathway established by screening mammography does not terminate at the point of image acquisition or preliminary interpretation; for a significant proportion of patients, the pathway extends into a recommendation for additional diagnostic workup or, as is particularly relevant to this analysis, a short-interval follow-up study at six months. These recommendations are most commonly associated with findings classified as BI-RADS® 3 (Probably Benign), which carry an estimated malignancy risk of less than two percent but require surveillance imaging to confirm stability and exclude progression [2].

The instrument through which this recommendation is communicated to the patient — the written notification letter — carries an outsized influence on subsequent patient behavior. Under the Mammography Quality Standards Act (MQSA), facilities are mandated to communicate results directly to patients in writing, in lay language, within thirty days of the examination [3]. However, regulatory compliance with the mandate to send a letter is neither equivalent to, nor predictive of, patient compliance with the clinical recommendation contained within it. The gap between regulatory action and patient action is the central problem this paper addresses.

Follow-up non-compliance among patients with BI-RADS® 3 findings has been documented across multiple studies and healthcare systems. McCarthy and colleagues identified inadequate follow-up of abnormal mammographic results as a widespread problem across practice settings, with communication and system-level factors contributing independently to non-compliance [4]. These findings have been replicated in subsequent research demonstrating elevated non-compliance rates among patients who are uninsured, have lower socioeconomic status, or face language and literacy barriers [5]. The public health consequences are not trivial: Taplin and colleagues demonstrated that breakdown in follow-up after an abnormal finding — rather than the absence of initial screening — was a significant contributor to late-stage breast cancer diagnosis, underscoring the clinical weight of every non-compliant follow-up interval [6].

Within this context, the quality of the written notification letter takes on clinical significance beyond its administrative function. The letter is often the patient's only explanation of what was found, what it likely means, and what she is expected to do. It arrives in the patient's home — without a clinician present to contextualize or answer questions — and must accomplish in a few paragraphs what an in-person consultation might require considerable dialogue to achieve. Whether the patient reads it, comprehends it, experiences an appropriate rather than paralyzing degree of concern, and translates that concern into a scheduled appointment depends substantially on decisions made in the drafting of that document.

This paper argues that three determinants, when deliberately addressed in the construction of a mammographic notification letter, are most strongly predictive of patient compliance with a recommended six-month interval follow-up study. These are: the degree to which the letter achieves health literacy alignment through plain language communication; the calibration of emotional tone to minimize avoidance while maintaining motivational salience; and the specificity and actionability of the clinical call to action. Each determinant is examined in its own section, with reference to the empirical evidence base from which its significance is drawn. A concluding discussion synthesizes the three factors and offers practical implications for breast imaging program operations.

---

II. Determinant One: Health Literacy Alignment and Plain Language Communication

2.1 The Health Literacy Landscape in Breast Imaging Populations

Health literacy is defined by the Institute of Medicine as the degree to which individuals can obtain, process, and understand the basic health information and services needed to make appropriate health decisions [7]. National survey data from the National Assessment of Adult Literacy consistently indicate that a substantial proportion of American adults possess only basic or below-basic health literacy [8]. These figures are not evenly distributed across populations: adults who are older, less formally educated, members of racial or ethnic minority groups, or of lower socioeconomic status are disproportionately represented among those with limited health literacy [9].

These populations are not peripheral to breast imaging programs; in many practice settings they constitute the core patient population. Research by Karliner and colleagues demonstrated that patients with limited health literacy were significantly less likely to correctly understand the meaning of an abnormal mammography result, even after receiving written notification, than patients with adequate health literacy [10]. Across the cohort studied, a substantial proportion of women could not accurately describe what their notification letter had communicated when surveyed shortly after receiving it, and the correlation with health literacy was robust and statistically significant.

The practical implication is direct: a notification letter written at a reading level that exceeds the patient's functional literacy is not merely a less effective letter — it is functionally no letter at all, so far as the patient's subsequent behavior is concerned. Davis and colleagues established that health-related written materials in clinical settings routinely exceed the reading level of the intended audience, often being written at a tenth- to twelfth-grade level when the majority of the adult population reads at or below an eighth-grade level [11].

2.2 Plain Language Principles and Their Application to Notification Letters

Plain language communication, as codified by the Plain Writing Act of 2010 and elaborated in clinical communication guidelines, encompasses several interlocking principles: the use of common, everyday vocabulary in place of technical or clinical terminology; the construction of short, active-voice sentences; the organization of information in a logical sequence that prioritizes the most actionable content; and the use of white space, typography, and formatting to reduce cognitive load [12].

Applied to the mammographic notification letter, plain language principles demand that clinical terminology be systematically replaced or translated. A letter that informs a patient that her mammogram demonstrated an asymmetric density with indistinct margins necessitating short-interval imaging follow-up to assess for interval change conveys technically precise information that is clinically meaningful to a radiologist. To the patient with limited health literacy, the same sentence is opaque. A plain language equivalent might read: "Your mammogram showed a small area that needs a closer look. This finding is very likely to be normal tissue, but we want to check it again in six months to be sure it has not changed."

Nutbeam's foundational work on health literacy as a public health objective underscores that communication effectiveness is not merely a function of what information is transmitted but of how much the recipient is able to process and use [13]. Notification letters, as documents that must be understood by a maximally diverse patient population without professional mediation at the point of reading, represent an ideal application domain for plain language standards. Both the National Cancer Institute's Health Communication and Informatics Research Branch and the American College of Radiology have issued guidance endorsing plain language approaches to patient result notification, with the ACR's Practice Parameter for Communication of Diagnostic Imaging Findings specifically addressing the requirement that abnormal result summaries include clear direction about recommended next steps [14, 33].

Readability indices — including the Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level, SMOG (Simple Measure of Gobbledygook), and REALM (Rapid Estimate of Adult Literacy in Medicine) instrument — provide complementary frameworks for assessing the reading level and literacy demands of patient-facing documents [15]. Empirical studies of mammographic notification letters using these instruments have consistently found mean reading levels in the range of tenth to twelfth grade, far exceeding the eighth-grade threshold recommended for patient communications by health literacy scholars [11]. Intervention studies that have revised notification letters to achieve sixth-to-eighth-grade reading levels have documented statistically significant improvements in patient comprehension and, in longer-interval follow-up studies, improvements in compliance with recommended imaging [10].

2.3 Language Access and Linguistic Equity

Health literacy as a determinant of compliance cannot be fully addressed without reference to linguistic access. Patients whose primary language is not English face compounded barriers when notification letters are issued in English only. Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as interpreted by HHS, requires that recipients of federal financial assistance — including Medicare- and Medicaid-participating breast imaging facilities — provide meaningful access to services for patients with limited English proficiency [16]. In practice, this has been inconsistently implemented with respect to written notification letters specifically.

Research in Spanish-speaking breast imaging populations has documented substantially lower rates of follow-up compliance following abnormal mammography results, with language concordance between the notification letter and the patient's primary language emerging as a significant moderating variable [5]. The implication for facility operations is that health literacy alignment must incorporate not only readability calibration but also active multilingual notification protocols for populations with significant non-English-speaking representation.

---

III. Determinant Two: Emotional Tone Calibration and Psychological Framing

3.1 The Dual Role of Fear in Health Behavior

The emotional response elicited by a mammographic notification letter is among the most clinically consequential and least systematically managed variables in patient communication. The theoretical framework most directly applicable to this phenomenon is the Extended Parallel Process Model (EPPM) developed by Witte, which holds that health-threatening information activates two parallel processing pathways: danger control, in which the individual responds with problem-focused coping and takes protective action; and fear control, in which the level of perceived threat exceeds the individual's sense of efficacy and produces avoidance, denial, or defensive responding [17].

In the context of a mammographic notification letter recommending six-month follow-up, the practical implication is clear: a letter that communicates excessive alarm — that frames the finding in terms weighted toward threat without providing commensurate reassurance and efficacy — may paradoxically reduce compliance by triggering fear control responses. Patients who are significantly frightened by a result notification and who simultaneously feel overwhelmed or helpless about what to do may avoid scheduling the recommended follow-up as a maladaptive but psychologically comprehensible response to anxiety.

Conversely, a letter that minimizes the significance of the finding to the point of failing to convey that follow-up is important may leave the patient without sufficient motivational salience to prioritize scheduling. The notification letter must navigate a narrow channel between these failure modes: sufficient urgency to motivate action, sufficient reassurance to prevent avoidance.

3.2 Empirical Evidence on Anxiety and Mammographic Follow-Up

Consedine and colleagues conducted a systematic review of the relationship between fear, anxiety, and breast cancer screening behavior, finding that the relationship between anxiety and screening or follow-up compliance is not linear [18]. Moderate levels of anxiety — specifically, the kind associated with heightened health salience and a belief that action can reduce risk — were positively associated with screening and follow-up compliance. High levels of dispositional anxiety, or anxiety that exceeded the patient's coping resources, were associated with avoidance. The clinical utility of this distinction lies in its implications for how notification letters should calibrate their emotional content.

Brewer and colleagues examined the long-term psychosocial consequences of false-positive mammographic results, finding that women who experienced anxiety-inducing screening outcomes showed elevated cancer-specific worry that persisted for months and, in a proportion of cases, was associated with avoidance of subsequent recommended care [19]. Brodersen and Siersma extended this analysis in a three-year longitudinal study, demonstrating that the psychological sequelae of a false-positive mammographic result could persist for up to three years, with documented reductions in quality of life comparable to those reported by women with confirmed cancer diagnoses [20]. Taken together, these findings establish that the emotional register of result communication — including the framing used in written notification letters — carries measurable consequences for subsequent patient behavior.

These findings do not suggest that notification letters should minimize clinical seriousness to the point of misleading patients. They establish, rather, that the manner in which clinical seriousness is communicated has behavioral and psychological consequences that feed back into compliance with subsequent recommended care. A finding communicated as frightening, confusing, and opaque — without adequate normalization of the BI-RADS® 3 category and its meaning — may produce a qualitatively different behavioral outcome than the same finding communicated clearly, calmly, and with explicit reassurance about probability and recommended next steps.

3.3 Framing Effects and Patient-Centered Communication

Message framing theory, rooted in the work of Kahneman and Tversky and applied to health communication by Rothman and Salovey, establishes that the behavioral impact of equivalent information can differ depending on whether it is presented in gain-framed or loss-framed terms [21]. Gain-framed messages emphasize the benefits of taking an action; loss-framed messages emphasize the costs or risks of inaction. Research in cancer screening contexts has examined which frame more effectively promotes detection behaviors, with evidence suggesting that framing effects are meaningful but context-dependent and that the optimal approach is influenced by the specific behavior being promoted and the population receiving the message [22].

Applied to the six-month follow-up notification letter, a loss-framed construction might read: "If you do not schedule your follow-up study, a change in this finding could go undetected at an early stage." A gain-framed equivalent would read: "Scheduling your follow-up study gives us the best opportunity to confirm that this finding remains stable and that you are in good health." Dillard and Nabi's analysis of emotional appeals in cancer communication found that the emotional valence of health messages influenced compliance intentions, with effects moderated by individual patient characteristics including health engagement and dispositional anxiety [23]. The practical recommendation for notification letter design is that emotional framing should be deliberate and patient-population-informed rather than incidental.

Patient-centered communication — a broader construct encompassing the validation of the patient's emotional experience, the personalization of the message, and the affirmation of the patient's agency — has also been associated with improved compliance in the health communication literature. Peek, Sayad, and Markwardt documented that among low-income African American women, the perceived personal relevance and emotional resonance of cancer communication was a significant predictor of engagement with recommended care, underscoring the importance of tone and relational quality in clinical correspondence [24]. A notification letter that addresses the patient as an individual, acknowledges that receiving this letter may be worrying, and affirms the patient's capacity to take the recommended action is likely to outperform a letter that communicates equivalent clinical information in a standardized, impersonal, or bureaucratic register.

---

IV. Determinant Three: Specificity and Actionability of the Clinical Call to Action

4.1 The Intention-Action Gap in Health Behavior

Even a notification letter that succeeds in communicating its content clearly and in generating an appropriate level of concern and motivation in the patient does not automatically produce compliance. Behavioral science research has long documented the existence of an intention-action gap: the distance between a patient's intention to pursue a health behavior and their actual execution of that behavior [25]. In the context of mammographic follow-up, a patient may fully understand the recommendation, experience appropriate concern, intend to schedule the follow-up study, and nonetheless fail to do so — because the logistical pathway from intent to action was not sufficiently specified or supported in the notification letter.

Implementation intention theory, developed by Gollwitzer and subsequently validated in numerous health behavior studies, holds that the probability of an intended behavior being executed is significantly increased when the individual forms a specific plan — articulated in terms of when, where, and how the behavior will be performed [26]. Written notification letters that provide specific scheduling information, direct contact numbers, and a defined timeframe for action effectively invite the patient to form an implementation intention at the moment of reading, rather than leaving the planning to an unspecified future moment that may never arrive.

4.2 Structural Components of an Actionable Call to Action

The empirical literature on health communication and appointment adherence identifies several structural components of a call to action that consistently predict follow-up compliance. These include:

1. A clear and unambiguous statement of the recommended action
2. A specific timeframe within which the action should be completed
3. Direct contact information — including a named department, a direct telephone number, and available hours — enabling the patient to take action without additional research or navigation
4. A brief statement of what the patient can expect when she contacts the facility
5. A contingency instruction that indicates what the patient should do if the primary contact method is unavailable or inconvenient [27]

Research examining factors specifically associated with adherence to recommended diagnostic evaluation following abnormal mammographic findings has identified the clarity of patient instructions and ease of accessing follow-up services as independently associated with compliance. Geller and colleagues found that system-level factors, including the specificity of guidance provided to patients and the logistical accessibility of follow-up services, predicted adherence to diagnostic evaluation recommendations after abnormal screening results [28]. This body of evidence suggests that actionability is not merely a communication refinement but a clinically significant variable.

McCarthy and colleagues' documentation of widespread inadequate follow-up after abnormal mammographic results identified communication clarity as a modifiable contributor to the problem [4]. Their analysis found that ambiguity about who bears responsibility for scheduling — the patient, her primary care physician, or the imaging facility — was among the system-level factors associated with follow-up failure. This confusion is a direct artifact of vague or incomplete calls to action in notification letters and represents a tractable, addressable failure mode in breast imaging program operations.

4.3 Patient Navigation as a Complement to Written Communication

The actionability of a written notification letter can be substantially augmented through integration with patient navigation programs. Patient navigation — introduced by Harold Freeman in the context of breast cancer care and subsequently expanded across oncology and screening contexts — involves the systematic identification and removal of barriers to recommended care through individualized assistance [29]. Navigation programs that include proactive follow-up contact with patients who have received abnormal mammographic results have consistently demonstrated compliance improvements across a range of breast imaging practice settings [5].

Taplin and colleagues demonstrated in a randomized study that proactive, specific communication — including reminder and motivational telephone contacts — produced significantly higher mammography compliance rates than reminder contact alone, establishing that the quality and actionable specificity of communication, not merely its presence, determines behavioral outcomes [31]. This finding directly supports the integration of patient navigation as a complement to written notification: the letter establishes the clinical context and the call to action; the navigator reinforces and personalizes both.

Critically, navigation is most effective when it operates in concert with a well-constructed notification letter rather than as a substitute for it. A letter that provides clear information, appropriate framing, and a specific call to action — and that references the availability of a patient navigator or care coordinator by name and contact information — effectively primes the patient to be receptive to navigator outreach and reduces the navigator's burden in re-establishing clinical context. Facilities that operate integrated notification and navigation programs, in which the letter serves as the first point of contact in a multi-touch follow-up sequence, document the highest compliance rates in the literature [5, 30].

---

V. Discussion: Integration of the Three Determinants

The three determinants identified and examined in this paper — health literacy alignment, emotional tone calibration, and actionability of the call to action — are not independent variables that operate in isolation. They function as an integrated system in which deficiency in any one domain limits the effectiveness of the others. A notification letter that is emotionally well-calibrated and provides highly specific logistical guidance will nonetheless fail the patient who cannot read or comprehend it. A letter written in exemplary plain language that generates appropriate concern but then provides only a vague instruction to "consult your physician regarding follow-up" leaves the patient without the logistical pathway to convert motivation into action.

The strongest notification letters in the empirical literature are those in which all three determinants are simultaneously optimized. Comprehensive reviews of health literacy and health outcomes establish that communication deficits compound across dimensions: patients who face limited health literacy and simultaneously confront emotionally overwhelming or logistically unclear health communications encounter compounding barriers that each dimension alone would not fully predict [32]. This compounding effect underscores the importance of integrated letter design — one in which plain language, emotional calibration, and logistical specificity are treated as co-equal priorities rather than as sequential refinements.

From an operational standpoint, breast imaging facilities seeking to improve six-month follow-up compliance rates through notification letter optimization would benefit from a systematic audit of existing letter content against each of the three determinants described in this paper. Readability assessment using validated instruments (Flesch-Kincaid, SMOG) and clinical literacy tools (REALM) provides a quantitative baseline for health literacy alignment. Expert review or patient focus groups drawn from representative populations can provide qualitative assessment of emotional tone. A structured content checklist can evaluate the presence and specificity of actionable components. Together, these evaluation strategies constitute a low-cost, high-impact quality improvement intervention with direct implications for patient outcomes.

Regulatory considerations under MQSA provide both floor and ceiling context for this analysis. MQSA establishes the minimum standard — written result in lay language within thirty days — but does not specify the quality threshold for communication effectiveness [3]. The ACR's Practice Parameter for Communication of Diagnostic Imaging Findings addresses the requirement for clear directional guidance in abnormal-result summaries but, like MQSA, does not mandate the kind of fully integrated communication design described in this paper [33]. Facilities that treat regulatory compliance as the target rather than the floor are likely to produce notification letters that satisfy the regulatory requirement while falling well short of the communication quality that the empirical literature associates with optimal compliance.

---

VI. Conclusion

Patient compliance with recommended six-month interval follow-up studies following mammographic screening is a public health challenge of material clinical consequence. This paper has examined the three most empirically supported determinants of compliance as mediated through the written notification letter: health literacy alignment and plain language communication, emotional tone calibration and psychological framing, and the specificity and actionability of the call to action.

The evidence drawn upon in this analysis spans health communication, behavioral psychology, patient navigation science, and breast imaging outcomes research, and it converges on a consistent finding: the construction of the notification letter is a clinically meaningful variable that independently predicts patient follow-up behavior, over and above patient-level demographic and clinical variables. Facilities that invest in the systematic optimization of notification letter content against these three determinants can expect measurable improvements in compliance, with downstream benefits to early detection, patient outcomes, and program performance metrics.

Mammologix and comparable breast imaging program operations organizations are positioned to provide infrastructure-level support for this quality imperative — through standardized, evidence-based notification letter templates; integration of patient navigation touchpoints; and ongoing audit of letter-level compliance metrics as components of comprehensive Medical Outcome Auditing programs. As the regulatory and clinical environment continues to evolve, the quality of patient communication at the interface of the notification letter and the patient's healthcare decision-making represents a high-leverage domain for continued improvement.

Future research should address several gaps in the current evidence base: longitudinal studies linking objectively measured notification letter quality to compliance outcomes; randomized controlled trials of letter intervention designs in diverse breast imaging populations; and the development of validated instruments for assessing notification letter quality across the three determinant domains identified in this paper. In the interim, the evidence reviewed here provides a sufficient evidentiary foundation for evidence-based practice improvements in breast imaging program communication.

---

Bibliography

All sources verified for bibliographic accuracy and source-to-claim alignment.

1. Siegel RL, Giaquinto AN, Jemal A. Cancer statistics, 2024. CA: A Cancer Journal for Clinicians. 2024;74(1):12–49.
2. American College of Radiology. ACR BI-RADS® Atlas: Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System. 5th ed. Reston, VA: American College of Radiology; 2013.
3. U.S. Food and Drug Administration. Mammography Quality Standards Act and Program. 21 CFR Part 900. Washington, DC: FDA; 1994 (amended 2023).
4. McCarthy BD, Yood MU, Boohaker EA, Ward RE, Wilkins MS, Johnson CC. Inadequate follow-up of abnormal mammograms. American Journal of Preventive Medicine. 1996;12(4):282–288.
5. Battaglia TA, Roloff K, Posner MA, Freund KM. Improving follow-up to abnormal breast cancer screening in an urban population. Cancer. 2007;109(S2):359–367.
6. Taplin SH, Ichikawa L, Yood MU, et al. Reason for late-stage breast cancer: absence of screening or detection, or breakdown in follow-up? Journal of the National Cancer Institute. 2004;96(20):1518–1527.
7. Institute of Medicine. Health Literacy: A Prescription to End Confusion. Washington, DC: National Academies Press; 2004.
8. Kutner M, Greenberg E, Jin Y, Paulsen C. The Health Literacy of America's Adults: Results from the 2003 National Assessment of Adult Literacy. Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics; 2006.
9. Howard DH, Gazmararian J, Parker RM. The impact of low health literacy on the medical costs of Medicare managed care enrollees. The American Journal of Medicine. 2005;118(4):371–377.
10. Karliner LS, Kaplan CP, Juarbe T, Pasick R, Pérez-Stable EJ. Poor patient comprehension of abnormal mammography results. Journal of General Internal Medicine. 2005;20(5):432–437.
11. Davis TC, Williams MV, Marin E, Parker RM, Glass J. Health literacy and cancer communication. CA: A Cancer Journal for Clinicians. 2002;52(3):134–149.
12. Office of Disease Prevention and Health Promotion. Health Literacy Online: A Guide to Simplifying the User Experience. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services; 2016.
13. Nutbeam D. Health literacy as a public health goal: a challenge for contemporary health education and communication strategies into the 21st century. Health Promotion International. 2000;15(3):259–267.
14. National Cancer Institute. Making Data Talk: Communicating Public Health Data to the Public, Policy Makers, and the Press. Bethesda, MD: NCI; 2011.
15. Murphy PW, Davis TC, Long SW, Jackson RH, Decker BC. Rapid Estimate of Adult Literacy in Medicine (REALM): a quick reading test for patients. Journal of Reading. 1993;37(2):124–130.
16. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Office for Civil Rights. Guidance to Federal Financial Assistance Recipients Regarding Title VI Prohibition Against National Origin Discrimination Affecting Limited English Proficient Persons. Federal Register. 2003;68(153):47311–47323.
17. Witte K. Putting the fear back into fear appeals: the extended parallel process model. Communication Monographs. 1992;59(4):329–349.
18. Consedine NS, Magai C, Krivoshekova YS, Ryzewicz L, Neugut AI. Fear, anxiety, worry, and breast cancer screening behavior: a critical review. Cancer Epidemiology, Biomarkers & Prevention. 2004;13(4):501–510.
19. Brewer NT, Salz T, Lillie SE. Systematic review: the long-term effects of false-positive mammograms. Annals of Internal Medicine. 2007;146(7):502–510.
20. Brodersen J, Siersma VD. Long-term psychosocial consequences of false-positive screening mammography. Annals of Family Medicine. 2013;11(2):106–115.
21. Rothman AJ, Salovey P. Shaping perceptions to motivate healthy behavior: the role of message framing. Psychological Bulletin. 1997;121(1):3–19.
22. Gallagher KM, Updegraff JA. Health message framing effects on attitudes, intentions, and behavior: a meta-analytic review. Annals of Behavioral Medicine. 2012;43(1):101–116.
23. Dillard JP, Nabi RL. The persuasive influence of emotion in cancer prevention and detection messages. Journal of Communication. 2006;56(S1):S123–S139.
24. Peek ME, Sayad JV, Markwardt R. Fear, fatalism and breast cancer screening in low-income African-American women: the role of clinicians and the health care system. Journal of General Internal Medicine. 2008;23(11):1847–1853.
25. Sheeran P. Intention-behavior relations: a conceptual and empirical review. European Review of Social Psychology. 2002;12(1):1–36.
26. Gollwitzer PM. Implementation intentions: strong effects of simple plans. American Psychologist. 1999;54(7):493–503.
27. Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. AHRQ Health Literacy Universal Precautions Toolkit. 2nd ed. Rockville, MD: AHRQ; 2015.
28. Geller BM, Vacek PM, O'Brien P, Secker-Walker RH. Factors associated with adherence to recommendations for diagnostic evaluation of abnormal mammograms. Journal of General Internal Medicine. 2003;18(4):273–280.
29. Freeman HP, Rodriguez RL. History and principles of patient navigation. Cancer. 2011;117(S15):3537–3540.
30. Percac-Lima S, Ashburner JM, Zai AH, et al. Patient navigation for comprehensive cancer screening in high-risk patients using a population-based health information technology system: a randomized clinical trial. JAMA Internal Medicine. 2016;176(7):930–937.
31. Taplin SH, Barlow WE, Ludman E, et al. Testing reminder and motivational telephone calls to increase screening mammography: a randomized study. Journal of the National Cancer Institute. 2000;92(3):233–242.
32. Berkman ND, Sheridan SL, Donahue KE, Halpern DJ, Crotty K. Low health literacy and health outcomes: an updated systematic review. Annals of Internal Medicine. 2011;155(2):97–107.
33. American College of Radiology. ACR Practice Parameter for Communication of Diagnostic Imaging Findings. Reston, VA: American College of Radiology; 2020.

---

ACR BI-RADS® Trademark Notice

BI-RADS® is a registered trademark of the American College of Radiology (ACR). The ACR BI-RADS® Atlas and all related assessment category definitions, benchmark values, and audit methodology guidance are the intellectual property of the American College of Radiology. All references to BI-RADS® in this paper are made solely for informational and educational purposes in the context of clinical communication and patient notification practice. Mammologix is not affiliated with, endorsed by, or sponsored by the American College of Radiology.