Zishuo Ian Hu1, Dylan M Smith1. 1. Department of Preventive Medicine, Stony Brook University School of Medicine, Stony Brook, NY.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: In the United States and in New York State, individuals with no health insurance have consistently lower screening rates for breast and cervical cancer than those with health insurance and are also more likely to be diagnosed with advanced stages of cancer. Our objective was to compare the cancer screening rates among patients at a free student-run clinic to state and national data. To our knowledge, ours is the first study examining breast and cervical screening rates and their relation to insurance status, income level, education level, race, and marital status in a suburban free student-run clinic. METHODS: As part of their intake from fall 2012 to spring 2013, patients at the Stony Brook Health Outreach and Medical Education Clinic in Stony Brook, NY, filled out a 26-item survey that included questions about race, income, education level, marital status, and cancer screening status. We compared the screening rates reported by our patients to published state and national rates. RESULTS: Breast and cervical cancer screening rates reported by 165 patients treated at our free student-run clinic were lower than the overall state and national averages. No significant associations between race, income, education level, or marital status and cancer screening rates were detected. CONCLUSION: Cancer screening rates at our free student-run clinic for the uninsured were lower than the overall state and national rates. These findings are consistent with previous reports of lower cancer preventive care utilization among the uninsured and suggest that insurance status has been a significant barrier to obtaining cancer screenings among our clinic population. Increasing cancer screening rates at student-run clinics may be a cost-effective secondary prevention activity that can decrease cancer mortality.
BACKGROUND: In the United States and in New York State, individuals with no health insurance have consistently lower screening rates for breast and cervical cancer than those with health insurance and are also more likely to be diagnosed with advanced stages of cancer. Our objective was to compare the cancer screening rates among patients at a free student-run clinic to state and national data. To our knowledge, ours is the first study examining breast and cervical screening rates and their relation to insurance status, income level, education level, race, and marital status in a suburban free student-run clinic. METHODS: As part of their intake from fall 2012 to spring 2013, patients at the Stony Brook Health Outreach and Medical Education Clinic in Stony Brook, NY, filled out a 26-item survey that included questions about race, income, education level, marital status, and cancer screening status. We compared the screening rates reported by our patients to published state and national rates. RESULTS: Breast and cervical cancer screening rates reported by 165 patients treated at our free student-run clinic were lower than the overall state and national averages. No significant associations between race, income, education level, or marital status and cancer screening rates were detected. CONCLUSION:Cancer screening rates at our free student-run clinic for the uninsured were lower than the overall state and national rates. These findings are consistent with previous reports of lower cancer preventive care utilization among the uninsured and suggest that insurance status has been a significant barrier to obtaining cancer screenings among our clinic population. Increasing cancer screening rates at student-run clinics may be a cost-effective secondary prevention activity that can decrease cancer mortality.
Entities:
Keywords:
Ambulatory care; Papanicolaou test; early detection of cancer; mammography; preventive medicine
Authors: Neel M Butala; William Murk; Leora I Horwitz; Lauren K Graber; Laurie Bridger; Peter Ellis Journal: J Health Care Poor Underserved Date: 2012-02
Authors: R G Roetzheim; N Pal; C Tennant; L Voti; J Z Ayanian; A Schwabe; J P Krischer Journal: J Natl Cancer Inst Date: 1999-08-18 Impact factor: 13.506
Authors: Israel De Alba; F Allan Hubbell; Juliet M McMullin; Jamie M Sweningson; Richard Saitz Journal: J Gen Intern Med Date: 2005-03 Impact factor: 5.128
Authors: Elizabeth Ward; Michael Halpern; Nicole Schrag; Vilma Cokkinides; Carol DeSantis; Priti Bandi; Rebecca Siegel; Andrew Stewart; Ahmedin Jemal Journal: CA Cancer J Clin Date: 2007-12-20 Impact factor: 508.702
Authors: Martin L Brown; Carrie N Klabunde; Kathy A Cronin; Mary C White; Lisa C Richardson; Timothy S McNeel Journal: Prev Chronic Dis Date: 2014-02-27 Impact factor: 2.830
Authors: Sabrina Khalil; Leigh Hatch; Corley Rachelle Price; Sri Harsha Palakurty; Elizabeth Simoneit; Anna Radisic; Anaisy Pargas; Ishana Shetty; Michelle Lyman; Patrick Couchot; Richard Roetzheim; Lucy Guerra; Eduardo Gonzalez Journal: J Community Health Date: 2020-06