4.6 Article

Predictors of Colorectal Cancer Screening in Two Underserved U.S. Populations: A Parallel Analysis

期刊

FRONTIERS IN ONCOLOGY
卷 8, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

FRONTIERS MEDIA SA
DOI: 10.3389/fonc.2018.00230

关键词

guideline colorectal cancer screening; underserved populations; neighborhood deprivation; guideline screening; correlates of screening

类别

资金

  1. SCCS [R01CA092447, U01CA202979]
  2. Pelotonia (Ohio Appalachia) [R24MD002785, P30CA016058]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: Despite declining colorectal cancer (CRC) incidence and mortality rates in the U.S., significant geographic and racial disparities in CRC death rates remain. Differences in guideline-concordant CRC screening rates may explain some of these disparities. We aim to assess individual and neighborhood-level predictors of guideline-concordant CRC screening within two cohorts of individuals located within CRC mortality geographic hotspot regions in the U.S. Methods: A total of 36,901 participants from the Southern Community Cohort Study and 4,491 participants from the Ohio Appalachia CRC screening study were included in this study. Self-reported date of last CRC screening was used to determine if the participant was within guidelines for screening Logistic regression models were utilized to determine the association of individual-level predictors, neighborhood deprivation, and residence in hotspot regions on the odds of being within guidelines for CRC screening. Results: Lower household income, lack of health insurance, and being a smoker were each associated with lower odds of being within guidelines for CRC screening in both cohorts. Area-level associations were less evident, although up to 15% lower guideline adherence was associated with residence in neighborhoods of greater deprivation and in the Lower Mississippi Delta, one of the identified CRC mortality hotspots. Conclusion: These results reveal the adverse effects of lower area-level and individual socioeconomic status on adherence to CRC guideline 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

4.6
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