4.2 Article

Having a Personal Healthcare Provider and Receipt of Adequate Cervical and Breast Cancer Screening

Journal

Publisher

AMER BOARD FAMILY MEDICINE
DOI: 10.3122/jabfm.2010.01.090034

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. National Institutes of Health/National Center on Minority Health and Health Disparities [1-P20-MD001633-010003]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Introduction: The purpose of this study was to assess the relationship between having a personal health care provider and adequate cervical and breast cancer screening behavior. Methods: Cross-sectional data were obtained from the 2004 Behavior Risk Factor Surveillance System. For cervical cancer, female respondents 18 years of age and older who did not have hysterectomy were included (n = 130,359); for breast cancer, female respondents 40 years of age or older were included (n = 129,929). Multiple logistic regression analyses were performed to determine the association between having a personal health care provider, specific demographics, and health insurance status with adequate cervical and breast cancer screening behavior. Results: Approximately 9% and 14% of the study population for the breast cancer and cervical cancer analyses, respectively, did not have a personal health care provider. Having at least one personal health care provider was significantly associated with adequate cervical cancer screening behavior (odds ratio, 2.37; 95% CI, 2.08-2.70) and breast cancer screening behavior (odds ratio, 2.86; 95% CI, 2.54-3.24) in multivariate analyses. Both multivariate analyses were adjusted for age, race/ethnicity, education, income, and health insurance. Conclusion: Having at least one personal health care provider was associated with adequate cervical and breast cancer screening behavior. Efforts to increase primary care access are a necessary part of the plan to increase preventive health services utilization. (J Am Board Fam Med 2010; 23: 75-81.)

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.2
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available