4.3 Article

Inequality in the Utilization of Breast Cancer Screening between Women with and without Disabilities in Taiwan: A Propensity-Score-Matched Nationwide Cohort Study

出版社

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/ijerph19095280

关键词

disability; breast cancer screening; inequality

资金

  1. Ministry of Science and Technology [MOST105-2410H-468-017]
  2. Asia University
  3. China Medical University [ASIA-108-CMUH-15]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Women with disabilities are less likely to undergo breast cancer screening, particularly those with dementia, multiple disabilities, or intellectual disabilities.
Because of the difficulties in accessing medical care, the likelihood of receiving breast cancer screening may be low for women with disabilities. We aimed to investigate differences in the utilization of breast cancer screening among women with and without disabilities. Participants included women with and without disabilities from 2004 to 2010, and it was observed whether the participants had received a breast cancer screening during 2011 and 2012. Propensity-score matching was employed to match disabled women with non-disabled women (1:1). Data sources included the National Health Insurance Research Database, the Cancer Screening Database, and the Disability Registration File. Conditional logistic regression was performed to examine the odds ratios (ORs) that both groups would undergo breast cancer screening. The proportion of women with disabilities who received breast cancer screening was 18.33%, which was significantly lower than that of women without disabilities (25.52%) (p < 0.001). Women with dementia had the lowest probability of receiving a mammography examination (OR = 0.34; 95% CI: 0.28-0.43), followed by those with multiple disabilities (OR = 0.43; 95% CI: 0.40-0.47) and intellectual disabilities (OR = 0.45; 95% CI: 0.41-0.50). In conclusion, compared to women without disabilities, those with disabilities were less likely to undergo breast cancer screening.

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

4.3
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