BACKGROUND: The Medicare population has documented racial/ethnic disparities in colorectal cancer (CRC) screening, but it is unknown whether these disparities differ across geographic regions. METHODS: Among Medicare enrollees within 8 US states, we ascertained up-to-date CRC screening on December 31, 2003 (fecal occult blood testing in the prior year or sigmoidoscopy or colonoscopy in the prior 5 years). Logistic regression models tested for regional variation in up-to-date status among white versus different nonwhite populations (blacks, Asian/Pacific Islanders [APIs], Hispanics). We estimated regression-adjusted region-specific prevalence of up-to-date status by race/ethnicity and compared adjusted white versus nonwhite up-to-date prevalence across regions by using generalized least squares regression. RESULTS: White versus nonwhite up-to-date status varied significantly across regions for blacks (P = .01) and APIs (P < .001) but not Hispanics (P = .62). Whereas the white versus black differences in proportion up-to-date were greatest in Atlanta (Georgia), rural Georgia, and the San Francisco Bay Area of California (range, 10%-16% differences, blacks<whites); there were no significant white versus black differences in Connecticut, Seattle (Washington) or Iowa. Whereas APIs had significantly lower up-to-date prevalence than whites in Michigan and the California regions of San Francisco, Los Angeles, and San Jose (range, 4%-15% differences, APIs<whites), APIs in Hawaii had higher up-to-date status than whites (52% vs 38% P < .001). White versus Hispanic differences were substantial but homogeneous across regions (range, 8%-16% differences, Hispanics<whites). In contrast to nonwhites, there was little geographic variation in up-to-date status among whites. CONCLUSIONS: Significant geographic variation in up-to-date status among black and API Medicare enrollees is associated with heterogeneous racial/ethnic disparities for these groups across US regions.
BACKGROUND: The Medicare population has documented racial/ethnic disparities in colorectal cancer (CRC) screening, but it is unknown whether these disparities differ across geographic regions. METHODS: Among Medicare enrollees within 8 US states, we ascertained up-to-date CRC screening on December 31, 2003 (fecal occult blood testing in the prior year or sigmoidoscopy or colonoscopy in the prior 5 years). Logistic regression models tested for regional variation in up-to-date status among white versus different nonwhite populations (blacks, Asian/Pacific Islanders [APIs], Hispanics). We estimated regression-adjusted region-specific prevalence of up-to-date status by race/ethnicity and compared adjusted white versus nonwhite up-to-date prevalence across regions by using generalized least squares regression. RESULTS: White versus nonwhite up-to-date status varied significantly across regions for blacks (P = .01) and APIs (P < .001) but not Hispanics (P = .62). Whereas the white versus black differences in proportion up-to-date were greatest in Atlanta (Georgia), rural Georgia, and the San Francisco Bay Area of California (range, 10%-16% differences, blacks<whites); there were no significant white versus black differences in Connecticut, Seattle (Washington) or Iowa. Whereas APIs had significantly lower up-to-date prevalence than whites in Michigan and the California regions of San Francisco, Los Angeles, and San Jose (range, 4%-15% differences, APIs<whites), APIs in Hawaii had higher up-to-date status than whites (52% vs 38% P < .001). White versus Hispanic differences were substantial but homogeneous across regions (range, 8%-16% differences, Hispanics<whites). In contrast to nonwhites, there was little geographic variation in up-to-date status among whites. CONCLUSIONS: Significant geographic variation in up-to-date status among black and API Medicare enrollees is associated with heterogeneous racial/ethnic disparities for these groups across US regions.
Authors: Anna P Schenck; Carrie N Klabunde; Joan L Warren; Sharon Peacock; William W Davis; Sarah T Hawley; Michael Pignone; David F Ransohoff Journal: Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev Date: 2007-10 Impact factor: 4.254
Authors: Nancy N Baxter; Meredith A Goldwasser; Lawrence F Paszat; Refik Saskin; David R Urbach; Linda Rabeneck Journal: Ann Intern Med Date: 2008-12-15 Impact factor: 25.391
Authors: Michael Pignone; Melissa Rich; Steven M Teutsch; Alfred O Berg; Kathleen N Lohr Journal: Ann Intern Med Date: 2002-07-16 Impact factor: 25.391
Authors: Jaime Benarroch-Gampel; Kristin M Sheffield; Yu-Li Lin; Yong-Fang Kuo; James S Goodwin; Taylor S Riall Journal: Health Serv Res Date: 2011-12-08 Impact factor: 3.402
Authors: Paul K J Han; Christine W Duarte; Susannah Daggett; Andrea Siewers; Bill Killam; Kahsi A Smith; Andrew N Freedman Journal: Patient Educ Couns Date: 2015-07-19
Authors: Lynn M Wielen; Emma C Gilchrist; Molly A Nowels; Stephen M Petterson; George Rust; Benjamin F Miller Journal: J Health Care Poor Underserved Date: 2015-08
Authors: Jennifer Adjemian; Kenneth N Olivier; Amy E Seitz; Steven M Holland; D Rebecca Prevots Journal: Am J Respir Crit Care Med Date: 2012-02-03 Impact factor: 21.405
Authors: Giyeon Kim; Patricia Parmelee; Ami N Bryant; Martha R Crowther; Soohyun Park; Jason M Parton; David H Chae Journal: Gerontologist Date: 2017-11-10