BACKGROUND: Research has found some disparities between U.S. women with and without disabilities in receiving clinical preventive services. Substantial differences may also exist within the population of women with disabilities. The current study examined published research on Pap smears, mammography, and clinical breast examinations across disability severity levels among women with disabilities. METHODS: Informed by an expert panel, we followed guidelines for systematic literature reviews and searched MEDLINE, PsycINFO, and Cinahl databases. We also reviewed in-depth four disability- or preventive service-relevant journals. Two reviewers independently extracted data from all selected articles. FINDINGS: Five of 74 reviewed publications of met all our inclusion criteria and all five reported data on Pap smears, mammography, and clinical breast examination. Articles classified disability severity groups by functional and/or activity levels. Associations between disability severity and Pap smear use were inconsistent across the publications. Mammography screening fell as disability level increased according to three of the five studies. Results demonstrated modestly lower screening, but also were inconsistent for clinical breast examinations across studies. CONCLUSION: Evidence is inconsistent concerning disparities in these important cancer screening services with increasing disability levels. Published studies used differing methods and definitions, adding to concerns about the evidence for screening disparities rising along with increasing disability. More focused research is required to determine whether significant disparities exist in cancer screening among women with differing disability levels. This information is essential for national and local public health and health care organizations to target interventions to improve care for women with disabilities.
BACKGROUND: Research has found some disparities between U.S. women with and without disabilities in receiving clinical preventive services. Substantial differences may also exist within the population of women with disabilities. The current study examined published research on Pap smears, mammography, and clinical breast examinations across disability severity levels among women with disabilities. METHODS: Informed by an expert panel, we followed guidelines for systematic literature reviews and searched MEDLINE, PsycINFO, and Cinahl databases. We also reviewed in-depth four disability- or preventive service-relevant journals. Two reviewers independently extracted data from all selected articles. FINDINGS: Five of 74 reviewed publications of met all our inclusion criteria and all five reported data on Pap smears, mammography, and clinical breast examination. Articles classified disability severity groups by functional and/or activity levels. Associations between disability severity and Pap smear use were inconsistent across the publications. Mammography screening fell as disability level increased according to three of the five studies. Results demonstrated modestly lower screening, but also were inconsistent for clinical breast examinations across studies. CONCLUSION: Evidence is inconsistent concerning disparities in these important cancer screening services with increasing disability levels. Published studies used differing methods and definitions, adding to concerns about the evidence for screening disparities rising along with increasing disability. More focused research is required to determine whether significant disparities exist in cancer screening among women with differing disability levels. This information is essential for national and local public health and health care organizations to target interventions to improve care for women with disabilities.
Authors: Rosanne M Leipzig; Evelyn P Whitlock; Tracy A Wolff; Mary B Barton; Yvonne L Michael; Russell Harris; Diana Petitti; Timothy Wilt; Al Siu Journal: Ann Intern Med Date: 2010-12-21 Impact factor: 25.391
Authors: Elizabeth Courtney-Long; Brian Armour; Brunella Frammartino; Jacqueline Miller Journal: J Womens Health (Larchmt) Date: 2011-07-06 Impact factor: 2.681
Authors: Jennifer P Wisdom; Marjorie G McGee; Willi Horner-Johnson; Yvonne L Michael; Elizabeth Adams; Michelle Berlin Journal: Soc Work Public Health Date: 2010-05
Authors: Monika Mitra; Ilhom Akobirshoev; Nechama Sammet Moring; Linda Long-Bellil; Suzanne C Smeltzer; Lauren D Smith; Lisa I Iezzoni Journal: J Womens Health (Larchmt) Date: 2017-08-23 Impact factor: 2.681
Authors: Bevanne Bean-Mayberry; Lori Bastian; Mark Trentalange; Terrence E Murphy; Melissa Skanderson; Heather Allore; Evelyn Reyes-Harvey; Natalya C Maisel; Vera Gaetano; Steven Wright; Sally Haskell; Cynthia Brandt Journal: Med Care Date: 2015-04 Impact factor: 2.983
Authors: Sara M Sarasua; Jiexiang Li; German T Hernandez; Keith C Ferdinand; Jonathan N Tobin; Kevin A Fiscella; Daniel W Jones; Angelo Sinopoli; Brent M Egan Journal: J Clin Hypertens (Greenwich) Date: 2017-05-07 Impact factor: 3.738
Authors: Lisa I Iezzoni; Sowmya R Rao; Julie Ressalam; Dragana Bolcic-Jankovic; Nicole D Agaronnik; Karen Donelan; Tara Lagu; Eric G Campbell Journal: Health Aff (Millwood) Date: 2021-02 Impact factor: 6.301
Authors: Lena Ansmann; Alfred Schabmann; Sophie Elisabeth Gross; Anke Gross-Kunkel; Ute-Susann Albert; Igor Osipov Journal: Breast Care (Basel) Date: 2019-10-14 Impact factor: 2.860