BACKGROUND: Evidence suggests that rural minority populations experience disparities in cancer screening, treatment, and outcomes. It is unknown how race/ethnicity and rurality intersect in these disparities. The purpose of this analysis is to examine the cancer screening rates among minorities in rural areas. METHODS: We utilized the 2008 Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System (BRFSS) to examine rates of screening for breast, cervical, and colorectal cancer. Bivariate analysis estimated screening rates by rurality and sociodemographics. Multivariate analysis estimated the factors that contributed to the odds of screening. RESULTS: Rural residents were less likely to obtain screenings than urban residents. African Americans were more likely to be screened than whites or Hispanics. Race/ethnicity and rurality interacted, showing that African American women continued to be more likely than whites to be screened for breast or cervical cancer, but the odds decreased with rurality. CONCLUSIONS: This analysis confirmed previous research which found that rural residents were less likely to obtain cancer screenings than other residents. We further found that the pattern of disparity differed according to race/ethnicity, with African Americans having favorable odds of receipt of service regardless of rurality. These results have the potential to create better targeted interventions to those groups that continue to be underserved.
BACKGROUND: Evidence suggests that rural minority populations experience disparities in cancer screening, treatment, and outcomes. It is unknown how race/ethnicity and rurality intersect in these disparities. The purpose of this analysis is to examine the cancer screening rates among minorities in rural areas. METHODS: We utilized the 2008 Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System (BRFSS) to examine rates of screening for breast, cervical, and colorectal cancer. Bivariate analysis estimated screening rates by rurality and sociodemographics. Multivariate analysis estimated the factors that contributed to the odds of screening. RESULTS: Rural residents were less likely to obtain screenings than urban residents. African Americans were more likely to be screened than whites or Hispanics. Race/ethnicity and rurality interacted, showing that African American women continued to be more likely than whites to be screened for breast or cervical cancer, but the odds decreased with rurality. CONCLUSIONS: This analysis confirmed previous research which found that rural residents were less likely to obtain cancer screenings than other residents. We further found that the pattern of disparity differed according to race/ethnicity, with African Americans having favorable odds of receipt of service regardless of rurality. These results have the potential to create better targeted interventions to those groups that continue to be underserved.
Authors: Lucy A Peipins; Jacqueline Miller; Thomas B Richards; Janet Kay Bobo; Ta Liu; Mary C White; Djenaba Joseph; Florence Tangka; Donatus U Ekwueme Journal: J Community Health Date: 2012-12
Authors: Samir Gupta; Daniel A Sussman; Chyke A Doubeni; Daniel S Anderson; Lukejohn Day; Amar R Deshpande; B Joseph Elmunzer; Adeyinka O Laiyemo; Jeanette Mendez; Ma Somsouk; James Allison; Taft Bhuket; Zhuo Geng; Beverly B Green; Steven H Itzkowitz; Maria Elena Martinez Journal: J Natl Cancer Inst Date: 2014-03-28 Impact factor: 13.506
Authors: Michael T Halpern; Melissa A Romaire; Susan G Haber; Florence K Tangka; Susan A Sabatino; David H Howard Journal: Cancer Date: 2014-08-25 Impact factor: 6.860
Authors: Whitney E Zahnd; Natoshia Askelson; Robin C Vanderpool; Lindsay Stradtman; Jean Edward; Paige E Farris; Victoria Petermann; Jan M Eberth Journal: Prev Med Date: 2019-08-15 Impact factor: 4.018
Authors: Lara A Rosenwasser; Jennifer S McCall-Hosenfeld; Carol S Weisman; Marianne M Hillemeier; Amanda N Perry; Cynthia H Chuang Journal: Rural Remote Health Date: 2013-10-08 Impact factor: 1.759
Authors: Allison E Anderson; Kevin A Henry; N Jewel Samadder; Ray M Merrill; Anita Y Kinney Journal: Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol Date: 2012-12-04 Impact factor: 11.382
Authors: Chinedum Ojinnaka; Ann Vuong; Janet Helduser; Philip Nash; Marcia G Ory; David A McClellan; Jane N Bolin Journal: J Community Health Date: 2015-04
Authors: Mary E Charlton; Kevin A Matthews; Anne Gaglioti; Camden Bay; Bradley D McDowell; Marcia M Ward; Barcey T Levy Journal: J Rural Health Date: 2015-11-26 Impact factor: 4.333