BACKGROUND: Disparities in breast and cervical cancer screening by socioeconomic status persist in the United States. It has been suggested that social support may facilitate screening, especially among women of low socioeconomic status. However, at present, it is unclear whether social support enables mammogram and Pap test compliance. PURPOSE: This study examines the association between social support and compliance with mammogram and Pap test screening guidelines, and whether social support provides added value for women of low education. METHOD: Data were from a countywide 2009-2010 population-based survey, which included records of 2,588 women 40 years and older (mammogram) and 2,123 women 21 to 65 years old (Pap test). Compliance was determined using the guidelines in effect at the time of data collection. RESULTS: Social support was significantly related to mammogram (adjusted odds ratio = 1.43; 95% confidence interval [1.16, 1.77]) and Pap test (adjusted odds ratio = 1.71; 95% confidence interval [1.27, 2.29]) compliance after controlling for age, race, having a regular health care provider, and insurance status. The interaction between social support and education had a significant effect on Pap test compliance only among women younger than 40; the effect was not significant for mammogram compliance. CONCLUSION: Social support is associated with breast and cervical cancer screening compliance. The association between education and cancer screening behavior may be moderated by social support; however, results hold only for Pap tests among younger women. Practitioners and researchers should focus on interventions that activate social support networks as they may help increase both breast and cervical cancer screening compliance among women with low educational attainment.
BACKGROUND: Disparities in breast and cervical cancer screening by socioeconomic status persist in the United States. It has been suggested that social support may facilitate screening, especially among women of low socioeconomic status. However, at present, it is unclear whether social support enables mammogram and Pap test compliance. PURPOSE: This study examines the association between social support and compliance with mammogram and Pap test screening guidelines, and whether social support provides added value for women of low education. METHOD: Data were from a countywide 2009-2010 population-based survey, which included records of 2,588 women 40 years and older (mammogram) and 2,123 women 21 to 65 years old (Pap test). Compliance was determined using the guidelines in effect at the time of data collection. RESULTS: Social support was significantly related to mammogram (adjusted odds ratio = 1.43; 95% confidence interval [1.16, 1.77]) and Pap test (adjusted odds ratio = 1.71; 95% confidence interval [1.27, 2.29]) compliance after controlling for age, race, having a regular health care provider, and insurance status. The interaction between social support and education had a significant effect on Pap test compliance only among women younger than 40; the effect was not significant for mammogram compliance. CONCLUSION: Social support is associated with breast and cervical cancer screening compliance. The association between education and cancer screening behavior may be moderated by social support; however, results hold only for Pap tests among younger women. Practitioners and researchers should focus on interventions that activate social support networks as they may help increase both breast and cervical cancer screening compliance among women with low educational attainment.
Authors: Edwin B Fisher; Muchieh Maggy Coufal; Humberto Parada; Jennifer B Robinette; Patrick Y Tang; Diana M Urlaub; Claudia Castillo; Laura M Guzman-Corrales; Sayaka Hino; Jaimie Hunter; Ariana W Katz; Yael R Symes; Heidi P Worley; Cuirong Xu Journal: Annu Rev Public Health Date: 2014-01-02 Impact factor: 21.981
Authors: Judith Swan; Nancy Breen; Barry I Graubard; Timothy S McNeel; Donald Blackman; Florence K Tangka; Rachel Ballard-Barbash Journal: Cancer Date: 2010-10-15 Impact factor: 6.860
Authors: Florence K L Tangka; Brett O'Hara; James G Gardner; Joanna Turner; Janet Royalty; Kate Shaw; Susan Sabatino; Ingrid J Hall; Ralph J Coates Journal: Cancer Causes Control Date: 2010-04-02 Impact factor: 2.506
Authors: P P Vitaliano; J M Scanlan; J Zhang; M V Savage; B Brummett; J Barefoot; I C Siegler Journal: Health Psychol Date: 2001-05 Impact factor: 4.267
Authors: Sandi L Pruitt; Matthew J Shim; Patricia Dolan Mullen; Sally W Vernon; Benjamin C Amick Journal: Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev Date: 2009-10 Impact factor: 4.254
Authors: Shawnita Sealy-Jefferson; Molly E Roseland; Michele L Cote; Amy Lehman; Eric A Whitsel; Faheemah N Mustafaa; Jason Booza; Michael S Simon Journal: J Womens Health (Larchmt) Date: 2018-09-27 Impact factor: 2.681