4.3 Article

Community-Based Colorectal Cancer Screening in a Rural Population: Who Returns Fecal Immunochemical Test (FIT) Kits?

期刊

JOURNAL OF RURAL HEALTH
卷 33, 期 4, 页码 371-374

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/jrh.12210

关键词

access to care; colorectal cancer screening; epidemiology; fecal immunochemical testing; health disparities

资金

  1. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention [1U48 DP005014]
  2. NATIONAL CENTER FOR CHRONIC DISEASE PREV AND HEALTH PROMO [U48DP005014] Funding Source: NIH RePORTER

向作者/读者索取更多资源

PurposeTo determine the return rate of community-delivered fecal immunochemical test (FIT) kits in a rural population and to identify significant predictors of returning kits. MethodsResidents were recruited in 8 rural Kentucky counties to enroll in the study and receive an FIT kit. Of 345 recruited, 82.0% returned an FIT kit from the point of distribution. These participants were compared to the remainder relative to age, sex, marital status, having an annual income below $15,000, not graduating from high school, not having a regular health care provider, not having health care coverage, being a current smoker, indicating current overweight or obese status, and a scale measure of fatalism pertaining to colorectal cancer. Predictors achieving significance at the bivariate level were entered into a stepwise logistic regression model to calculate adjusted OR and 95% CI. FindingsThe return rate was 82.0%. In adjusted analyses, those indicating an annual income of less than $15,000 were 2.85 times more likely to return their kits (95% CI: 1.56-5.24; P < .001). Also, those not perceiving themselves to be overweight/obese were 1.95 times more likely to return their kits (95% CI: 1.07-3.55; P = .029). ConclusionsAn outreach-based colorectal cancer screening program in a rural population may yield high return rates. People with annual incomes below $15,000 and those not having perceptions of being overweight/obese may be particularly likely to return FIT kits.

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