4.3 Article

Cancer prevention behaviors and socioeconomic status among Hispanics and non-Hispanic whites in a rural population in the United States

Journal

CANCER CAUSES & CONTROL
Volume 13, Issue 8, Pages 719-728

Publisher

KLUWER ACADEMIC PUBL
DOI: 10.1023/A:1020280427712

Keywords

breast cancer screening; cancer prevention; cervical cancer screening; colorectal cancer screening; dietary behavior; Hispanics; non-Hispanic Whites; smoking; socioeconomic status

Funding

  1. NCI NIH HHS [CA74968] Funding Source: Medline

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Objectives: Socioeconomic status is explored as a predictor of differences between Hispanics and non-Hispanic Whites in cancer prevention behavior. Methods: In a cross-sectional study, in-person interviews (n = 1795) were conducted in a population-based random sample of adults in 20 communities with a high proportion of Hispanics. Results: Hispanics were significantly less likely than non-Hispanic Whites to ever have had cervical (p < 0.001), breast (p = 0.007), or colorectal cancer (FOBT p = 0.008; sigmoidoscopy/colonoscopy p < 0.002) screening. After adjusting for socioeconomic status (education and having health insurance), only differences in cervical cancer remained significant (p = 0.024). After adjusting for socioeconomic status, Hispanics had a significantly higher intake of fruits and vegetables per day (4.84 servings) than non-Hispanic Whites (3.84 servings) (p < 0.001); and fat behavior score was marginally significant after adjustment for socioeconomic status (p = 0.053). Significantly fewer Hispanics were current smokers than non-Hispanic Whites (p < 0.001). Conclusions: There is only limited support for the hypothesis that socioeconomic status is a major determinant of some cancer-related behaviors; specifically, socioeconomic status is related to mammography and colorectal screening, but not cervical cancer, dietary behavior, or smoking.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.3
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available