4.1 Article

Sociodemographic and health-related determinants of breast and Cervical Cancer Screening behavior, 2005

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1111/J.1552-6909.2007.00190.x

Keywords

breast cancer; Cancer Screening; cervical cancer; disparities; healthy people 2010 objectives; risk factors

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Objectives: To identify sociodemographic and health-related determinants of Breast and Cervical Cancer Screening behaviors and evaluate progress toward Healthy People 2010 cancer-related objectives. Design: The Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System 2005 data served as the numerical predicate for identifying or validating sociodemographic and health-related quality of life predictors, or both, and for determining any relative progress. Setting/Participants: Eleven U.S. states (n = 27,625 women). Main Outcome Measures: Determinants of Breast and Cervical Cancer Screening and assessment of progress toward Healthy People 2010 objectives 3-11 and 3-13. Results: Nine significant predictors of annual Breast and Cervical Cancer Screening (reported as odds ratios) were identified through regression analysis: adequate health care coverage, nonsmoking, age between 40 and 64 years, age greater than or equal to 65 years, no activity limitations, Black, non-Hispanic race, income greater than or equal to $35K, current exercise performance, and no risk for high blood cholesterol. Also, Healthy People 2010 objective 3-11 was not met; however, objective 3-13 was exceeded by 2.0%. Conclusions: The national health initiatives appear to benefit select American women (overall declining mortality rates from breast and cervical cancer); however, there seems to be a negative economy of scale with respect to age-as age increases, Breast and Cervical Cancer Screening declines and morbidity/mortality increases. Given this disparity, as of 2005, related Healthy People 2010 objectives remain unrealized.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.1
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available