Jennifer L Moss1, Benmei Liu2, Eric J Feuer2. 1. Surveillance Research Program, Division of Cancer Control and Population Sciences, National Cancer Institute, Bethesda, Maryland. Electronic address: Jennifer.moss@nih.gov. 2. Statistical Research and Applications Branch, Surveillance Research Program, Division of Cancer Control and Population Sciences, National Cancer Institute, Bethesda, Maryland.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Breast and cervical cancer incidence vary by urbanicity, and several ecological factors could contribute to these patterns. In particular, cancer screening or other sociodemographic and health care system variables could explain geographic disparities in cancer incidence. METHODS: Governmental and research sources provided data on 612 counties in the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results program for rural-urban continuum code, socioeconomic status (SES) quintile, percent non-Hispanic White residents, density of primary care physicians, cancer screening, and breast and cervical cancer incidence rates (2009-2013). Ecological mediation analyses used weighted least squares regression to examine whether candidate mediators explained the relationship between urbanicity and cancer incidence. RESULTS: As urbanicity increased, so did breast cancer incidence (βˆ = 0.23; p < .001). SES quintile and density of primary care physicians mediated this relationship, whereas percent non-Hispanic White suppressed it (all p < .05); county-level mammography levels did not contribute to the relationship. After controlling for these variables, urbanicity and breast cancer incidence were no longer associated (βˆ = 0.11; p > .05). In contrast, as urbanicity increased, cervical cancer incidence decreased (βˆ = -0.33; p < .001). SES quintile and density of primary care physicians mediated this relationship (both p < .05); percent non-Hispanic White and Pap screening levels did not contribute to the relationship. After controlling for these variables, the relationship between urbanicity and cervical cancer incidence remained significant (βˆ = -0.13; p < .05). CONCLUSIONS: County-level SES and density of primary care physicians explained the relationships between urbanicity and breast and cervical cancer incidence. Improving these factors in more rural counties could ameliorate geographic disparities in breast and cervical cancer incidence. Published by Elsevier Inc.
BACKGROUND:Breast and cervical cancer incidence vary by urbanicity, and several ecological factors could contribute to these patterns. In particular, cancer screening or other sociodemographic and health care system variables could explain geographic disparities in cancer incidence. METHODS: Governmental and research sources provided data on 612 counties in the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results program for rural-urban continuum code, socioeconomic status (SES) quintile, percent non-Hispanic White residents, density of primary care physicians, cancer screening, and breast and cervical cancer incidence rates (2009-2013). Ecological mediation analyses used weighted least squares regression to examine whether candidate mediators explained the relationship between urbanicity and cancer incidence. RESULTS: As urbanicity increased, so did breast cancer incidence (βˆ = 0.23; p < .001). SES quintile and density of primary care physicians mediated this relationship, whereas percent non-Hispanic White suppressed it (all p < .05); county-level mammography levels did not contribute to the relationship. After controlling for these variables, urbanicity and breast cancer incidence were no longer associated (βˆ = 0.11; p > .05). In contrast, as urbanicity increased, cervical cancer incidence decreased (βˆ = -0.33; p < .001). SES quintile and density of primary care physicians mediated this relationship (both p < .05); percent non-Hispanic White and Pap screening levels did not contribute to the relationship. After controlling for these variables, the relationship between urbanicity and cervical cancer incidence remained significant (βˆ = -0.13; p < .05). CONCLUSIONS: County-level SES and density of primary care physicians explained the relationships between urbanicity and breast and cervical cancer incidence. Improving these factors in more rural counties could ameliorate geographic disparities in breast and cervical cancer incidence. Published by Elsevier Inc.
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: Steven S Coughlin; Jessica King; Thomas B Richards; Donatus U Ekwueme Journal: Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev Date: 2006-11 Impact factor: 4.254
Authors: Robert A Smith; Vilma Cokkinides; Durado Brooks; Debbie Saslow; Otis W Brawley Journal: CA Cancer J Clin Date: 2010 Mar-Apr Impact factor: 508.702
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: Jennifer L Moss; Siddhartha Roy; Chan Shen; Joie D Cooper; Robert P Lennon; Eugene J Lengerich; Alan Adelman; William Curry; Mack T Ruffin Journal: JAMA Netw Open Date: 2020-07-01
Authors: Jennifer L Moss; Casey N Pinto; Shobha Srinivasan; Kathleen A Cronin; Robert T Croyle Journal: J Natl Cancer Inst Date: 2022-06-13 Impact factor: 11.816
Authors: Jennifer L Moss; Casey N Pinto; Scherezade K Mama; Maria Rincon; Erin E Kent; Mandi Yu; Kathleen A Cronin Journal: Qual Life Res Date: 2020-11-02 Impact factor: 4.147
Authors: Jennifer L Moss; Ming Wang; Menglu Liang; Alain Kameni; Kelsey C Stoltzfus; Tracy Onega Journal: Cancer Epidemiol Date: 2021-09-21 Impact factor: 2.984
Authors: Jennifer M Hulett; Demetrius A Abshire; Jane M Armer; Rami Millspaugh; Joshua Millspaugh Journal: Cancer Nurs Date: 2021 Jul-Aug 01 Impact factor: 2.592
Authors: Jennifer L Moss; Casey N Pinto; Shobha Srinivasan; Kathleen A Cronin; Robert T Croyle Journal: Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev Date: 2020-10 Impact factor: 4.254
Authors: Brian L Sprague; Thomas P Ahern; Sally D Herschorn; Michelle Sowden; Donald L Weaver; Marie E Wood Journal: Prev Med Date: 2021-07-22 Impact factor: 4.018