Yolanda J McDonald1, Daniel W Goldberg1,2, Isabel C Scarinci3, Philip E Castle4, Jack Cuzick5, Michael Robertson6, Cosette M Wheeler6,7. 1. Department of Geography, College of Geosciences, Texas A&M University, College Station, Texas. 2. Department of Computer Science & Engineering, Dwight Look College of Engineering, Texas A&M University, College Station, Texas. 3. Division of Preventive Medicine, School of Medicine, University of Alabama, Birmigham, Alabama. 4. Department of Epidemiology and Population Health, Albert Einstein College of Medicine, Bronx, New York. 5. Centre for Cancer Prevention, Wolfson Institute of Preventive Medicine, Queen Mary University of London, London, United Kingdom. 6. Department of Pathology, House of Prevention Epidemiology (HOPE), University of New Mexico Health Sciences Center, Albuquerque, New Mexico. 7. Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of New Mexico Health Sciences Center, Albuquerque, New Mexico.
Abstract
PURPOSE: Multiple intrapersonal and structural barriers, including geography, may prevent women from engaging in cervical cancer preventive care such as screening, diagnostic colposcopy, and excisional precancer treatment procedures. Geographic accessibility, stratified by rural and nonrural areas, to necessary services across the cervical cancer continuum of preventive care is largely unknown. METHODS: Health care facility data for New Mexico (2010-2012) was provided by the New Mexico Human Papillomavirus Pap Registry (NMHPVPR), the first population-based statewide cervical cancer screening registry in the United States. Travel distance and time between the population-weighted census tract centroid to the nearest facility providing screening, diagnostic, and excisional treatment services were examined using proximity analysis by rural and nonrural census tracts. Mann-Whitney test (P < .05) was used to determine if differences were significant and Cohen's r to measure effect. FINDINGS: Across all cervical cancer preventive health care services and years, women who resided in rural areas had a significantly greater geographic accessibility burden when compared to nonrural areas (4.4 km vs 2.5 km and 4.9 minutes vs 3.0 minutes for screening; 9.9 km vs 4.2 km and 10.4 minutes vs 4.9 minutes for colposcopy; and 14.8 km vs 6.6 km and 14.4 minutes vs 7.4 minutes for precancer treatment services, all P < .001). CONCLUSION: Improvements in cervical cancer prevention should address the potential benefits of providing the full spectrum of screening, diagnostic and precancer treatment services within individual facilities. Accessibility, assessments distinguishing rural and nonrural areas are essential when monitoring and recommending changes to service infrastructures (eg, mobile versus brick and mortar).
PURPOSE: Multiple intrapersonal and structural barriers, including geography, may prevent women from engaging in cervical cancer preventive care such as screening, diagnostic colposcopy, and excisional precancer treatment procedures. Geographic accessibility, stratified by rural and nonrural areas, to necessary services across the cervical cancer continuum of preventive care is largely unknown. METHODS: Health care facility data for New Mexico (2010-2012) was provided by the New Mexico Human Papillomavirus Pap Registry (NMHPVPR), the first population-based statewide cervical cancer screening registry in the United States. Travel distance and time between the population-weighted census tract centroid to the nearest facility providing screening, diagnostic, and excisional treatment services were examined using proximity analysis by rural and nonrural census tracts. Mann-Whitney test (P < .05) was used to determine if differences were significant and Cohen's r to measure effect. FINDINGS: Across all cervical cancer preventive health care services and years, women who resided in rural areas had a significantly greater geographic accessibility burden when compared to nonrural areas (4.4 km vs 2.5 km and 4.9 minutes vs 3.0 minutes for screening; 9.9 km vs 4.2 km and 10.4 minutes vs 4.9 minutes for colposcopy; and 14.8 km vs 6.6 km and 14.4 minutes vs 7.4 minutes for precancer treatment services, all P < .001). CONCLUSION: Improvements in cervical cancer prevention should address the potential benefits of providing the full spectrum of screening, diagnostic and precancer treatment services within individual facilities. Accessibility, assessments distinguishing rural and nonrural areas are essential when monitoring and recommending changes to service infrastructures (eg, mobile versus brick and mortar).
Authors: K Robin Yabroff; William F Lawrence; Jason C King; Patricia Mangan; Kathleen Shakira Washington; Bin Yi; Jon F Kerner; Jeanne S Mandelblatt Journal: J Rural Health Date: 2005 Impact factor: 4.333
Authors: Beth A Jones; Amy Dailey; Lisa Calvocoressi; Kam Reams; Stanislav V Kasl; Carol Lee; Helen Hsu Journal: Cancer Causes Control Date: 2005-09 Impact factor: 2.506
Authors: Debbie Saslow; Diane Solomon; Herschel W Lawson; Maureen Killackey; Shalini L Kulasingam; Joanna Cain; Francisco A R Garcia; Ann T Moriarty; Alan G Waxman; David C Wilbur; Nicolas Wentzensen; Levi S Downs; Mark Spitzer; Anna-Barbara Moscicki; Eduardo L Franco; Mark H Stoler; Mark Schiffman; Philip E Castle; Evan R Myers Journal: CA Cancer J Clin Date: 2012-03-14 Impact factor: 508.702
Authors: Anneke T Schroen; David R Brenin; Maria D Kelly; William A Knaus; Craig L Slingluff Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2005-10-01 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: T Clark Powell; Sarah E Dilley; Sejong Bae; J Michael Straughn; Kenneth H Kim; Charles A Leath Journal: J Low Genit Tract Dis Date: 2018-10 Impact factor: 1.925
Authors: Cary Suzanne Lea; Carolina Perez-Heydrich; Andrea C Des Marais; Alice R Richman; Lynn Barclay; Noel T Brewer; Jennifer S Smith Journal: J Womens Health (Larchmt) Date: 2019-03-15 Impact factor: 2.681
Authors: Shaheen Kurani; Kathy L MacLaughlin; Robert M Jacobson; Jennifer L St Sauver; Gregory D Jenkins; Chun Fan; Debra J Jacobson; Jonathan Inselman; Xuan Zhu; Joan M Griffin; Lila J Finney Rutten Journal: Vaccine Date: 2021-12-13 Impact factor: 3.641
Authors: Rebecca Landy; Peter D Sasieni; Christopher Mathews; Charles L Wiggins; Michael Robertson; Yolanda J McDonald; Daniel W Goldberg; Isabel C Scarinci; Jack Cuzick; Cosette M Wheeler Journal: Int J Cancer Date: 2019-12-31 Impact factor: 7.316
Authors: Mercy N Asiedu; Júlia S Agudogo; Mary E Dotson; Erica Skerrett; Marlee S Krieger; Christopher T Lam; Doris Agyei; Juliet Amewu; Kwaku Asah-Opoku; Megan Huchko; John W Schmitt; Ali Samba; Emmanuel Srofenyoh; Nirmala Ramanujam Journal: Sci Rep Date: 2020-10-06 Impact factor: 4.379