Yan Lin1, Michael C Wimberly2. 1. Department of Geography, South Dakota State University, Brookings, South Dakota. 2. Geospatial Sciences Center of Excellence, South Dakota State University, Brookings, South Dakota.
Abstract
PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to examine the geographic variations of late-stage diagnosis in colorectal cancer (CRC) and breast cancer as well as to investigate the effects of 3 neighborhood-level factors-socioeconomic deprivation, urban/rural residence, and spatial accessibility to health care-on the late-stage risks. METHODS: This study used population-based South Dakota cancer registry data from 2001 to 2012. A total of 4,878 CRC cases and 6,418 breast cancer cases were included in the analyses. Two-level logistic regression models were used to analyze the risk of late-stage CRC and breast cancer. FINDINGS: For CRC, there was a small geographic variation across census tracts in late-stage diagnosis, and residing in isolated small rural areas was significantly associated with late-stage risk. However, this association became nonsignificant after adjusting for census-tract level socioeconomic deprivation. Socioeconomic deprivation was an independent predictor of CRC late-stage risk, and it explained the elevated risk among American Indians. No relationship was found between spatial accessibility and CRC late-stage risk. For breast cancer, no geographic variation in the late-stage diagnosis was observed across census tracts, and none of the 3 neighborhood-level factors was significantly associated with late-stage risk. CONCLUSIONS: Results suggested that socioeconomic deprivation, rather than spatial accessibility, contributed to CRC late-stage risks in South Dakota as a rural state. CRC intervention programs could be developed to target isolated small rural areas, socioeconomically disadvantaged areas, as well as American Indians residing in these areas.
PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to examine the geographic variations of late-stage diagnosis in colorectal cancer (CRC) and breast cancer as well as to investigate the effects of 3 neighborhood-level factors-socioeconomic deprivation, urban/rural residence, and spatial accessibility to health care-on the late-stage risks. METHODS: This study used population-based South Dakota cancer registry data from 2001 to 2012. A total of 4,878 CRC cases and 6,418 breast cancer cases were included in the analyses. Two-level logistic regression models were used to analyze the risk of late-stage CRC and breast cancer. FINDINGS: For CRC, there was a small geographic variation across census tracts in late-stage diagnosis, and residing in isolated small rural areas was significantly associated with late-stage risk. However, this association became nonsignificant after adjusting for census-tract level socioeconomic deprivation. Socioeconomic deprivation was an independent predictor of CRC late-stage risk, and it explained the elevated risk among American Indians. No relationship was found between spatial accessibility and CRC late-stage risk. For breast cancer, no geographic variation in the late-stage diagnosis was observed across census tracts, and none of the 3 neighborhood-level factors was significantly associated with late-stage risk. CONCLUSIONS: Results suggested that socioeconomic deprivation, rather than spatial accessibility, contributed to CRC late-stage risks in South Dakota as a rural state. CRC intervention programs could be developed to target isolated small rural areas, socioeconomically disadvantaged areas, as well as American Indians residing in these areas.
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: Kaitlin M McGrew; Jennifer D Peck; Sara K Vesely; Amanda E Janitz; Cuyler A Snider; Tyler M Dougherty; Janis E Campbell Journal: J Public Health Manag Pract Date: 2019 Sep/Oct
Authors: Jamaica R M Robinson; Amanda I Phipps; Wendy E Barrington; Philip M Hurvitz; Lianne Sheppard; Rachel C Malen; Polly A Newcomb Journal: Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev Date: 2021-05-04 Impact factor: 4.254
Authors: Ross Lawrenson; Chunhuan Lao; Mark Elwood; Charis Brown; Diana Sarfati; Ian Campbell Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2016-10-11 Impact factor: 3.390