OBJECTIVE: We sought to evaluate preventive cancer screening compliance among adults with disability in California. METHODS: We used data from the 2001 California Health Interview Survey to compare disabled and nondisabled adults for differences in preventive cancer screening behaviors. Compliance rates for cancer screening tests (mammography, Papanicolaou test, prostate-specific antigen, sigmoidoscopy/colonoscopy, and fecal occult blood test) between the 2 subpopulations were evaluated. RESULTS: Women with disabilities were 17% (Papanicolaou tests) and 13% (mammograms) more likely than women without disabilities to report noncompliance with cancer screening guidelines. Interactions between disability and reports of a doctor recommendation on cervical cancer screening were significant; women with disabilities had a lower likelihood of receiving a recommendation. Men with disabilities were 19% less likely than men without disabilities to report a prostate-specific antigen test within the last 3 years. CONCLUSIONS: secondary to structural and/or clinical factors underpinning the differences found.
OBJECTIVE: We sought to evaluate preventive cancer screening compliance among adults with disability in California. METHODS: We used data from the 2001 California Health Interview Survey to compare disabled and nondisabled adults for differences in preventive cancer screening behaviors. Compliance rates for cancer screening tests (mammography, Papanicolaou test, prostate-specific antigen, sigmoidoscopy/colonoscopy, and fecal occult blood test) between the 2 subpopulations were evaluated. RESULTS:Women with disabilities were 17% (Papanicolaou tests) and 13% (mammograms) more likely than women without disabilities to report noncompliance with cancer screening guidelines. Interactions between disability and reports of a doctor recommendation on cervical cancer screening were significant; women with disabilities had a lower likelihood of receiving a recommendation. Men with disabilities were 19% less likely than men without disabilities to report a prostate-specific antigen test within the last 3 years. CONCLUSIONS: secondary to structural and/or clinical factors underpinning the differences found.
Authors: E Richard Brown; Pamela L Davidson; Hongjian Yu; Roberta Wyn; Ronald M Andersen; Lida Becerra; Natasha Razack Journal: Inquiry Date: 2004 Impact factor: 1.730
Authors: E Richard Brown; Shana Alex Lavarreda; Ying-Ying Meng; Ronald M Andersen; Andrew B Bindman; Lillian Gelberg; Lida Becerra; Melissa Gatchell; Jean Yoon Journal: Policy Brief UCLA Cent Health Policy Res Date: 2004-03
Authors: R G Roetzheim; N Pal; C Tennant; L Voti; J Z Ayanian; A Schwabe; J P Krischer Journal: J Natl Cancer Inst Date: 1999-08-18 Impact factor: 13.506
Authors: Philippa J Clarke; Jennifer A Ailshire; Els R Nieuwenhuijsen; Marijke W de Kleijn-de Vrankrijker Journal: Soc Sci Med Date: 2011-04-05 Impact factor: 4.634
Authors: Stephanie B Wheeler; Tzy-Mey Kuo; Ravi K Goyal; Anne-Marie Meyer; Kristen Hassmiller Lich; Emily M Gillen; Seth Tyree; Carmen L Lewis; Trisha M Crutchfield; Christa E Martens; Florence Tangka; Lisa C Richardson; Michael P Pignone Journal: Health Place Date: 2014-07-24 Impact factor: 4.078
Authors: D Michal Freedman; Jincao Wu; Honglei Chen; Eric A Engels; Lindsey R Enewold; Neal D Freedman; James J Goedert; Ralph W Kuncl; Mitchell H Gail; Ruth M Pfeiffer Journal: Int J Epidemiol Date: 2016-03-17 Impact factor: 7.196
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