4.5 Article

Adherence to Multiple Cancer Screening Tests among Women Living in Appalachia Ohio

期刊

CANCER EPIDEMIOLOGY BIOMARKERS & PREVENTION
卷 24, 期 10, 页码 1489-1494

出版社

AMER ASSOC CANCER RESEARCH
DOI: 10.1158/1055-9965.EPI-15-0369

关键词

-

资金

  1. NIH [R24MD002785, P30 CA016058]
  2. Ohio State Clinical and Translational Science Award [NIH/NCRR UL1RR025755]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: There is a lack of information about the correlates of completing all three cancer screening tests among women living in Appalachia. Methods: Cross-sectional telephone interviews were conducted (April-September 2013) among women (n = 637) ages 51 to 75 years from 12 Appalachia Ohio counties. Outcomes of within screening guidelines were verified by medical records. Multivariable logistic regression models identified correlates of being within guidelines for all three cancer screening tests. Results: Screening rates included mammography (32.1%), Pap test (36.1%), and a colorectal cancer test (30.1%). Only 8.6% of women were within guidelines for all tests. Having had a check-up in the past 2 years and having received a screening recommendation were significantly related to being within guidelines for all three tests (P < 0.01). Participants with higher annual household incomes [$60,000+; OR, 3.53; 95% confidence interval (CI), 1.49-8.33] and conditions requiring regular medical visits (OR, 3.16; 95% CI, 1.29-7.74) were more likely to be within guidelines for all three screening tests. Conclusion: Less than 10% of women had completed screening within guidelines for all three screening tests. Regular contact with the health care system and higher incomes were significant predictors of being within guidelines. Impact: Within guidelines rates for the three recommended cancer screening tests are low among women in Appalachia Ohio. This finding illustrates the need for innovative interventions to improve rates of multiple cancer screening tests. (C) 2015 AACR.

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

4.5
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