Wenhui Wei1, Patricia A Findley, Usha Sambamoorthi. 1. Institute for Health, Health Care Policy, and Aging Research, Rutgers University, New Brunswick, New Jersey 08854, USA. weiwenhui@gmail.com
Abstract
BACKGROUND: More individuals are surviving catastrophic injuries and living longer with persistent disability; however, their receipt of clinical preventive services is not well understood as compared with those without disabilities given the dual focus of care on both primary prevention and the prevention of secondary complications related to their disabilities. METHODS: Longitudinal analyses of 1999-2002 Medical Expenditure Survey (MEPS). Study sample consisted of 3,183 community-dwelling women aged 51-64 years and followed for 2 full years. Women with disabilities were defined as having reported any limitation in any area of activity of daily living in 2 years. Recommended clinical preventive services were defined as receiving the following at the recommended intervals: colorectal, cervical, and breast cancer; cholesterol screening; and influenza immunization. chi(2) tests and multiple logistic regressions were used to examine variations in use of clinical preventive services. RESULTS: Overall, 23% of the women in the study (n = 835) were disabled. Disabled women, however, were less likely to receive mammography and Pap smears within the recommended intervals. However, disabled women were more likely to receive influenza immunization, cholesterol screening, and colorectal screening within the recommended intervals. Among the disabled, usual source of care and health insurance remained significant predictors of receipt of clinical preventive services across all types, CONCLUSIONS: Disabled women were less likely to receive some of the cancer screening services, suggesting a need for targeted interventions to promote breast cancer and cervical cancer screening. Increased access to health care insurance and health care providers may also help.
BACKGROUND: More individuals are surviving catastrophic injuries and living longer with persistent disability; however, their receipt of clinical preventive services is not well understood as compared with those without disabilities given the dual focus of care on both primary prevention and the prevention of secondary complications related to their disabilities. METHODS: Longitudinal analyses of 1999-2002 Medical Expenditure Survey (MEPS). Study sample consisted of 3,183 community-dwelling women aged 51-64 years and followed for 2 full years. Women with disabilities were defined as having reported any limitation in any area of activity of daily living in 2 years. Recommended clinical preventive services were defined as receiving the following at the recommended intervals: colorectal, cervical, and breast cancer; cholesterol screening; and influenza immunization. chi(2) tests and multiple logistic regressions were used to examine variations in use of clinical preventive services. RESULTS: Overall, 23% of the women in the study (n = 835) were disabled. Disabled women, however, were less likely to receive mammography and Pap smears within the recommended intervals. However, disabled women were more likely to receive influenza immunization, cholesterol screening, and colorectal screening within the recommended intervals. Among the disabled, usual source of care and health insurance remained significant predictors of receipt of clinical preventive services across all types, CONCLUSIONS: Disabled women were less likely to receive some of the cancer screening services, suggesting a need for targeted interventions to promote breast cancer and cervical cancer screening. Increased access to health care insurance and health care providers may also help.
Authors: David E Nelson; Shayne Bland; Eve Powell-Griner; Richard Klein; Henry E Wells; Gary Hogelin; James S Marks Journal: JAMA Date: 2002 May 22-29 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Richard Kent Zimmerman; Mahlon Raymund; Janine E Janosky; Mary Patricia Nowalk; Michael J Fine Journal: Vaccine Date: 2003-03-28 Impact factor: 3.641
Authors: Kirsten K Ness; Melissa M Hudson; Jill P Ginsberg; Rajaram Nagarajan; Sue C Kaste; Neyssa Marina; John Whitton; Leslie L Robison; James G Gurney Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2009-03-30 Impact factor: 44.544
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: 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