M Schootman1, L J Fuortes. 1. Bureaus of Health Promotion and Disability Prevention, Iowa Department of Public Health, Des Moines, Iowa, USA.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Although screening for breast and cervical carcinoma has been widely accepted as beneficial, specific segments of the population are not receiving these services as frequently as recommended. The objective of this study was to describe differences in breast and cervical screening prevalence among those with activity limitations and those residing in rural areas. Disparities in the incidence rates of in situ breast carcinoma and cervical carcinoma, as well as mortality among rural and urban women, are also described. METHODS: Data from the Iowa Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System (BRFSS) and Iowa's Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) were used to determine the prevalence of screening and adverse outcomes among rural populations. To describe the rural nature of counties, the authors used the number of residents per square mile for each county and classified the results into five groups. Mulitple logistic regression was used to determine the prevalence of screening among those with activity limitations and rural residents. RESULTS: Using the BRFSS, those with activity limitations and those residing in rural Iowa were less likely screened for breast or cervical carcinoma. This translated into a lower in situ breast carcinoma incidence rate and a higher invasive cervical carcinoma incidence rate among rural women relative to their urban counterparts. No differences were found for mortality from these cancers. CONCLUSIONS: Lower screening prevalence among rural residents translated into adverse health outcomes. Interventions for increasing the frequency of screening are described. Copyright 1999 American Cancer Society.
BACKGROUND: Although screening for breast and cervical carcinoma has been widely accepted as beneficial, specific segments of the population are not receiving these services as frequently as recommended. The objective of this study was to describe differences in breast and cervical screening prevalence among those with activity limitations and those residing in rural areas. Disparities in the incidence rates of in situ breast carcinoma and cervical carcinoma, as well as mortality among rural and urban women, are also described. METHODS: Data from the Iowa Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System (BRFSS) and Iowa's Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) were used to determine the prevalence of screening and adverse outcomes among rural populations. To describe the rural nature of counties, the authors used the number of residents per square mile for each county and classified the results into five groups. Mulitple logistic regression was used to determine the prevalence of screening among those with activity limitations and rural residents. RESULTS: Using the BRFSS, those with activity limitations and those residing in rural Iowa were less likely screened for breast or cervical carcinoma. This translated into a lower in situ breast carcinoma incidence rate and a higher invasive cervical carcinoma incidence rate among rural women relative to their urban counterparts. No differences were found for mortality from these cancers. CONCLUSIONS: Lower screening prevalence among rural residents translated into adverse health outcomes. Interventions for increasing the frequency of screening are described. Copyright 1999 American Cancer Society.
Authors: Carlos A Reyes-Ortiz; Luis F Velez; Maria E Camacho; Kenneth J Ottenbacher; Kyriakos S Markides Journal: Int J Epidemiol Date: 2008-05-29 Impact factor: 7.196
Authors: Jennifer P Wisdom; Marjorie G McGee; Willi Horner-Johnson; Yvonne L Michael; Elizabeth Adams; Michelle Berlin Journal: Soc Work Public Health Date: 2010-05
Authors: Jia-Rong Wu; Debra K Moser; Mary Kay Rayens; Marla J De Jong; Misook L Chung; Barbara Riegel; Terry A Lennie Journal: Heart Lung Date: 2010 Nov-Dec Impact factor: 2.210
Authors: K M Sanders; G C Nicholson; A M Ugoni; E Seeman; J A Pasco; M A Kotowicz Journal: J Epidemiol Community Health Date: 2002-06 Impact factor: 3.710
Authors: Smita Bhatia; Wendy Landier; Electra D Paskett; Katherine B Peters; Janette K Merrill; Jonathan Phillips; Raymond U Osarogiagbon Journal: J Natl Cancer Inst Date: 2022-07-11 Impact factor: 11.816
Authors: Melissa A Clark; Michelle L Rogers; Xiaozhong Wen; Victoria Wilcox; Kate McCarthy-Barnett; Jeanne Panarace; Carol Manning; Susan Allen; William Rakowski Journal: Womens Health Issues Date: 2009-09-23
Authors: Marina Pollán; Rebeca Ramis; Nuria Aragonés; Beatriz Pérez-Gómez; Diana Gómez; Virginia Lope; Javier García-Pérez; Jose Miguel Carrasco; Maria José García-Mendizábal; Gonzalo López-Abente Journal: BMC Cancer Date: 2007-05-08 Impact factor: 4.430