4.1 Article

Racial/Ethnic Patterns of Uptake of Colorectal Screening, National Health Interview Survey 2000-2008

期刊

JOURNAL OF THE NATIONAL MEDICAL ASSOCIATION
卷 102, 期 7, 页码 621-635

出版社

NATL MED ASSOC
DOI: 10.1016/S0027-9684(15)30640-4

关键词

race/ethnicity; screening; colorectal; health disparities; cancer

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: Lower access and/or utilization of colorectal screening are thought to be major contributors to the higher proportion of cancers among African Americans and Hispanics that are diagnosed at advanced stages of disease and the poorer outcomes observed among Hispanics and African Americans compared with non-Hispanic whites. We examine rates of initiation, utilization of specific screening modailities, adherence to colorectal screening guidelines, and rate of uptake of colonoscopy among age-eligible African Americans, Hispanics and non-Hispanic whites. Methods: Data on 46145 African American, Hispanic, and non-Hispanic white survey respondents to the 2000 and 2005 Cancer Control Modules and the 2003 and 2008 Sample Adult Cores of the National Health Interview Surveys are examined in these analyses. Results: There was a modest increase in the initiation of colorectal screening among non-Hispanic whites, only and racial/ethnic disparities colorectal screening utilization persisted. The proportion of respondents for whom colonoscopy was the most complete guideline consistent exam received increased over time, while use of other modalities decreased among all racial/ethnic groups. Conclusion: More effort must be made to increase colorectal screening among the US population in general but particularly among racial/ethnic minority populations. With the increased attention on prevention, there is also a need to increase knowledge of the strengths and limitations of specific screening modalities and the need to receive screening exams within recommended time intervals among both patients and providers making screening recommendations.

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