BACKGROUND & AIMS: Little is known about the effects of geographic factors, such as rural vs urban residence and travel time to colonoscopy providers, on risk-appropriate use of colorectal cancer (CRC) screening in the general population. We evaluated the effects of geographic factors on adherence to CRC screening and differences in screening use among familial risk groups. METHODS: We analyzed data from the 2010 Utah Behavior Risk Factor Surveillance System, which included state-added questions on familial CRC. By using multiple logistic regression models, we assessed the effects of rural vs urban residence, travel time to the nearest colonoscopy provider, and spatial accessibility of providers on adherence to risk-appropriate screening guidelines. Study participants (n = 4260) were respondents aged 50 to 75 years. RESULTS: Sixty-six percent of the sample adhered to risk-appropriate CRC screening guidelines, with significant differences between urban and rural residents (68% vs 57%, respectively; P < .001) across all familial risk groups. Rural residents were less likely than urban dwellers to be up-to-date with screening guidelines (multivariate odds ratio, 0.65; 95% confidence interval, 0.53-0.79). In the unadjusted analysis, rural vs urban residence (P < .001), travel time to the nearest colonoscopy provider (P = .003), and spatial accessibility of providers (P = .012) were associated significantly with adherence to screening guidelines. However, rural vs urban residence (P < .001) was the only geographic variable independently associated with screening adherence in the adjusted analyses. CONCLUSIONS: There are marked disparities in use of risk-appropriate CRC screening between rural and urban residents in Utah. Differences in travel time to the nearest colonoscopy provider and spatial accessibility of providers did not account for the geographic variations observed in screening adherence.
BACKGROUND & AIMS: Little is known about the effects of geographic factors, such as rural vs urban residence and travel time to colonoscopy providers, on risk-appropriate use of colorectal cancer (CRC) screening in the general population. We evaluated the effects of geographic factors on adherence to CRC screening and differences in screening use among familial risk groups. METHODS: We analyzed data from the 2010 Utah Behavior Risk Factor Surveillance System, which included state-added questions on familial CRC. By using multiple logistic regression models, we assessed the effects of rural vs urban residence, travel time to the nearest colonoscopy provider, and spatial accessibility of providers on adherence to risk-appropriate screening guidelines. Study participants (n = 4260) were respondents aged 50 to 75 years. RESULTS: Sixty-six percent of the sample adhered to risk-appropriate CRC screening guidelines, with significant differences between urban and rural residents (68% vs 57%, respectively; P < .001) across all familial risk groups. Rural residents were less likely than urban dwellers to be up-to-date with screening guidelines (multivariate odds ratio, 0.65; 95% confidence interval, 0.53-0.79). In the unadjusted analysis, rural vs urban residence (P < .001), travel time to the nearest colonoscopy provider (P = .003), and spatial accessibility of providers (P = .012) were associated significantly with adherence to screening guidelines. However, rural vs urban residence (P < .001) was the only geographic variable independently associated with screening adherence in the adjusted analyses. CONCLUSIONS: There are marked disparities in use of risk-appropriate CRC screening between rural and urban residents in Utah. Differences in travel time to the nearest colonoscopy provider and spatial accessibility of providers did not account for the geographic variations observed in screening adherence.
Authors: Eugene C Rich; Wylie Burke; Caryl J Heaton; Susanne Haga; Linda Pinsky; M Priscilla Short; Louise Acheson Journal: J Gen Intern Med Date: 2004-03 Impact factor: 5.128
Authors: Chanita Hughes Halbert; Frances K Barg; Carmen E Guerra; Judy A Shea; Katrina Armstrong; Monica Ferguson; Benita Weathers; James Coyne; Andrea B Troxel Journal: J Gen Intern Med Date: 2011-07-06 Impact factor: 5.128
Authors: Lisa K Christman; Rania Abdulla; Paul B Jacobsen; Alan B Cantor; Dionne Y Mayhew; Keva S Thompson; Jeffrey P Krischer; Richard G Roetzheim Journal: J Health Care Poor Underserved Date: 2004-05
Authors: Bernard Levin; David A Lieberman; Beth McFarland; Robert A Smith; Durado Brooks; Kimberly S Andrews; Chiranjeev Dash; Francis M Giardiello; Seth Glick; Theodore R Levin; Perry Pickhardt; Douglas K Rex; Alan Thorson; Sidney J Winawer Journal: CA Cancer J Clin Date: 2008-03-05 Impact factor: 508.702
Authors: David P Taylor; Lisa A Cannon-Albright; Carol Sweeney; Marc S Williams; Peter J Haug; Joyce A Mitchell; Randall W Burt Journal: Genet Med Date: 2011-08 Impact factor: 8.822
Authors: Yolanda Rodriguez Villalvazo; Jennifer S McDanel; Lauren A Beste; Antonio J Sanchez; Mary Vaughan-Sarrazin; David A Katz Journal: Health Serv Res Date: 2019-11-25 Impact factor: 3.402
Authors: Jennifer L Moss; Siddhartha Roy; Chan Shen; Joie D Cooper; Robert P Lennon; Eugene J Lengerich; Alan Adelman; William Curry; Mack T Ruffin Journal: JAMA Netw Open Date: 2020-07-01
Authors: Brynn Fowler; N Jewel Samadder; Deanna Kepka; Qian Ding; Lisa Pappas; Anne C Kirchhoff Journal: J Rural Health Date: 2017-04-20 Impact factor: 4.333
Authors: Charles R Rogers; Brenna E Blackburn; Matthew Huntington; Karen Curtin; Roland J Thorpe; Kerry Rowe; John Snyder; Vikrant Deshmukh; Michael Newman; Alison Fraser; Ken Smith; Mia Hashibe Journal: Cancer Causes Control Date: 2020-01-30 Impact factor: 2.506
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