Motolani E Ogunsanya1, Shan Jiang2, Andrew V Thach2, Benita A Bamgbade2, Carolyn M Brown2. 1. Health Outcomes and Pharmacy Practice Division, The College of Pharmacy, The University of Texas at Austin, Austin, TX. Electronic address: tmadedipe@utexas.edu. 2. Health Outcomes and Pharmacy Practice Division, The College of Pharmacy, The University of Texas at Austin, Austin, TX.
Abstract
PURPOSE: The purposes of the study were to examine the prevalence of prostate cancer screening (PCS) in the United States and to identify predictors of PCS guided by Andersen's Behavioral Model of Health Services Use (ABM). METHODS: PCS rates were analyzed in men (aged ≥40y) using 2014 data from the Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System. Descriptive analysis was conducted using sampling weights to determine the prevalence of PCS (i.e., had a prostate-specific antigen test). Multiple logistic regression within the framework of ABM was used to identify predictors of PCS. The ABM variables of predisposing (e.g., age), enabling (e.g., health insurance), and need (e.g., comorbidities) comprised the independent variables. RESULTS: Among the 131,415 men, 62.4% (N = 82,014) reported that they had a prostate-specific antigen test in the last 2 years. Among predisposing factors, age, education, income, and employment status were significantly associated with undergoing PCS. Informed decision-making process, health care coverage, regular health care provider, and length of time since last routine checkup were significant enabling factors. Health care provider recommendation and previous cancer diagnosis were significant need factors. CONCLUSIONS: Most older men in the United States had previously engaged in PCS. Several ABM variables were predictive of PCS and should be considered when developing future strategies to encourage PCS in at-risk men with the recommended life expectancies. Such strategies should also ensure that the decision to undergo PCS is an informed process between patients and their health care providers. Copyright Â
PURPOSE: The purposes of the study were to examine the prevalence of prostate cancer screening (PCS) in the United States and to identify predictors of PCS guided by Andersen's Behavioral Model of Health Services Use (ABM). METHODS:PCS rates were analyzed in men (aged ≥40y) using 2014 data from the Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System. Descriptive analysis was conducted using sampling weights to determine the prevalence of PCS (i.e., had a prostate-specific antigen test). Multiple logistic regression within the framework of ABM was used to identify predictors of PCS. The ABM variables of predisposing (e.g., age), enabling (e.g., health insurance), and need (e.g., comorbidities) comprised the independent variables. RESULTS: Among the 131,415 men, 62.4% (N = 82,014) reported that they had a prostate-specific antigen test in the last 2 years. Among predisposing factors, age, education, income, and employment status were significantly associated with undergoing PCS. Informed decision-making process, health care coverage, regular health care provider, and length of time since last routine checkup were significant enabling factors. Health care provider recommendation and previous cancer diagnosis were significant need factors. CONCLUSIONS: Most older men in the United States had previously engaged in PCS. Several ABM variables were predictive of PCS and should be considered when developing future strategies to encourage PCS in at-risk men with the recommended life expectancies. Such strategies should also ensure that the decision to undergo PCS is an informed process between patients and their health care providers. Copyright Â
Authors: Michael J Orlich; Andrew D Mashchak; Karen Jaceldo-Siegl; Jason T Utt; Synnove F Knutsen; Lars E Sveen; Gary E Fraser Journal: Am J Clin Nutr Date: 2022-08-04 Impact factor: 8.472
Authors: Pooja Agrawal; Tzuan A Chen; Lorna H McNeill; Chiara Acquati; Shahnjayla K Connors; Vijay Nitturi; Angelica S Robinson; Isabel Martinez Leal; Lorraine R Reitzel Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2021-08-11 Impact factor: 4.614
Authors: Huan-Cheng Chang; Ting-Huan Chang; Hsiao-Yen Kang; Yu-Wei Chen; Sheng-Pyng Chen; Mei-Chin Wang; Jersey Liang Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2022-06-02 Impact factor: 4.614
Authors: Visalini Nair-Shalliker; Albert Bang; Marianne Weber; David E Goldsbury; Michael Caruana; Jon Emery; Emily Banks; Karen Canfell; Dianne L O'Connell; David P Smith Journal: Sci Rep Date: 2018-03-09 Impact factor: 4.379