4.5 Article

Multilevel Small-Area Estimation of Colorectal Cancer Screening in the United States

期刊

CANCER EPIDEMIOLOGY BIOMARKERS & PREVENTION
卷 27, 期 3, 页码 245-253

出版社

AMER ASSOC CANCER RESEARCH
DOI: 10.1158/1055-9965.EPI-17-0488

关键词

-

资金

  1. Intramural CDC HHS [CC999999] Funding Source: Medline

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: The U.S. Preventive Services Task Force recommends routine screening for colorectal cancer for adults ages 50 to 75 years. We generated small-area estimates for being current with colorectal cancer screening to examine sociogeographic differences among states and counties. To our knowledge, nationwide county-level estimates for colorectal cancer screening are rarely presented. Methods: We used county data from the 2014 Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System (BRFSS; n = 251,360 adults), linked it to the American Community Survey poverty data, and fitted multilevel logistic regression models. We post-stratified the data with the U.S. Census population data to run Monte Carlo simulations. We generated county-level screening prevalence estimates nationally and by race/ethnicity, mapped the estimates, and aggregated them into state and national estimates. We evaluated internal consistency of our modeled state-specific estimates with BRFSS direct state estimates using Spearman correlation coefficients. Results: Correlation coefficients were >= 0.95, indicating high internal consistency. We observed substantial variations in current colorectal cancer screening estimates among the states and counties within states. State mean estimates ranged from 58.92% in Wyoming to 75.03% in Massachusetts. County mean estimates ranged from 40.11% in Alaska to 79.76% in Florida. Larger county variations were observed in various race/ethnicity groups. Conclusions: State estimates mask county variations. However, both state and county estimates indicate that the country is far behind the 80% by 2018 target. (C) 2018 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