4.8 Article

Cancer-Related Risk Factors and Preventive Measures in US Hispanics/Latinos

Journal

CA-A CANCER JOURNAL FOR CLINICIANS
Volume 62, Issue 6, Pages 353-363

Publisher

WILEY
DOI: 10.3322/caac.21155

Keywords

Hispanic; epidemiology; preventive medicine; public health; screening and early detection

Categories

Ask authors/readers for more resources

In this article, we provide prevalence data on major cancer-related risk factors, early detection testing, and vaccination among Hispanics using nationally representative surveys. Compared with non-Hispanic whites, Hispanic adults are less likely to be current smokers (13% vs 22%) or frequent alcohol drinkers, but they are more likely to be obese (32% vs 26%) and to have lower levels of mammography use within the past year (46% vs 51%), colorectal screening as per recommended intervals (47% vs 61%), and Papanicolaou (Pap) test use within the past 3 years (74% vs 79%). Within the Hispanic population, the prevalence of these risk factors and early detection methods substantially vary by country of origin. For example, Cuban men (20.7%) and Puerto Rican men (19%) had the highest levels of current smoking than any other Hispanic subgroups, while Mexican women had the lowest levels of mammogram use (44%) and Pap test use (71%). Hispanic migrants have a higher prevalence of hepatitis B virus and Helicobacter pylori, which cause liver and stomach cancer, respectively. Among Hispanic adolescents, tobacco use (eg, 20.8% use of any tobacco products), alcohol use (42.9%), and obesity (23.2%) remain highly prevalent risk factors. Although 56% of Hispanic adolescents initiate human papillomavirus vaccination, only 56% of them completed the 3-dose series. Differences in risk factors and early detection testing among Hispanic groups should be considered in clinical settings and for cancer control planning. CA Cancer J Clin 2012;62:353-363. (C) 2012 American Cancer Society.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.8
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available