4.1 Article

Disparities in colorectal screening between US-born and foreign-born populations: Evidence from the 2000 National Health Interview Survey

期刊

JOURNAL OF CANCER EDUCATION
卷 23, 期 1, 页码 18-25

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1080/08858190701634623

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background. Over 11% of the US population in 2002 was foreign born. Studies that have examined disparities of cancer screening often focus on racial/ethnicity differences without considering their origins. This study examines the disparities in colorectal cancer (CRC) screening between US- and foreign-born groups and explores factors associated with such disparities. Methods. Data were obtained from the 2000 National Health Interview Survey Cancer Control Module. Multivariate logistic models were used to compare the use of CRC screening among the foreign born and 4 US-born race/ethnicity subgroups while controlling for other factors that may affect such screening. Appropriate weighting procedures were employed to account for the complex design of the survey. Results. Compared with the US-born non-Hispanic Whites, the odds ratio of ever having had a colorectal screening for the US-born Hispanic, non-Hispanic Black, non-Hispanic other races groups, and the foreign-born group with 15 or more years of residency was 0.65, 0.77, 0.98, and 0.58, respectively. An even lower odds ratio (0.46) was found among the foreign-born group with a shorter duration of residency. We found that the rate of screening for foreign-born individuals with good socioeconomic status and/or with health insurance was significantly lower than that of the US-born with similar status, and the rate was not much different from that of US-born individuals in lower socioeconomic levels. Having a usual source of care was found to be the most important protective factor for the foreign-born group. Conclusions. Foreign birth was associated with a lower rate of CRC screening. Future studies of health disparities should also consider immigration status.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.1
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据