4.3 Article

Serious Psychological Distress as a Barrier to Cancer Screening Among Women

期刊

WOMENS HEALTH ISSUES
卷 25, 期 1, 页码 49-55

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.whi.2014.09.001

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: The purposes of the study were to examine the association of serious psychological distress (SPD) and cancer-screening utilization in a nationally representative sample of women aged 40 to 74 years and to identify barriers and facilitating factors to breast and cervical cancer screening among women with SPD. Methods: Women aged 40 to 74 (n = 17,770) were selected from the Household Component of Medical Expenditure Panel Survey series of 2007, 2009, and 2011. SPD was defined as a score of 13 of higher on the Kessler Psychological Distress Scale-6 items (K6 scale) of nonspecific psychological distress. Logistic regression was conducted to examine the association between SPD and up-to-date cancer screening. Findings: Women with SPD had significantly lower rates of up-to-date clinical breast examination (67.56% vs. 81.93%), mammography (59.94% vs. 75.56%), and Pap smear (72.27% vs. 85.37%). In multivariate logistic regression analyses adjusting for sociodemographics, insurance, health behaviors, comorbidity, and service utilization, SPD was associated with nearly 40% decreased odds of being up to date with all three screening tests. Having a usual place of care, being physically active, and a greater number of past-year medical visits were strongly associated with higher odds of screening utilization among women with SPD. Conclusions: Women with mental health problems have substantial risk for low use of routine breast and cervical cancer screenings. The K6 may be a useful tool to screen this risk factor. Frequent contact with the health care system among women with mental health problems opens up opportunities to reduce the mental illness-related disparities in utilization of cancer screening. Copyright 0 2015 by the Jacobs Institute of Women's Health. Published by Elsevier Inc.

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