Literature DB >> 32716514

Geographic Variation in Overscreening for Colorectal, Cervical, and Breast Cancer Among Older Adults.

Jennifer L Moss1, Siddhartha Roy1, Chan Shen1, Joie D Cooper1, Robert P Lennon1, Eugene J Lengerich1, Alan Adelman1, William Curry1, Mack T Ruffin1.   

Abstract

Importance: National guidelines balance risks and benefits of population-level cancer screening among adults with average risk. Older adults are not recommended to receive routine screening, but many continue to be screened (ie, are overscreened). Objective: To assess the prevalence of overscreening for colorectal, cervical, and breast cancers among older adults as well as differences in overscreening by metropolitan status. Design, Setting, and Participants: The cross-sectional study examined responses to a telephone survey of 176 348 community-dwelling adults. Participants were included if they met age and sex criteria, and they were excluded from each cancer-specific subsample if they had a history of that cancer. Data came from the 2018 Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System, administered by the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Exposures: Metropolitan status, according to whether participants lived in a metropolitan statistical area. Main Outcomes and Measures: Overscreening was assessed using US Preventive Services Task Force definitions, ie, whether participants self-reported having a screening after the recommended upper age limit for colorectal (75 years), cervical (65 years), or breast (74 years) cancer.
Results: Of 176 348 participants (155 411 [88.1%] women; mean [SE] age, 75.0 [0.04] years; 150 871 [85.6%] non-Hispanic white; 60 456 [34.3%] with nonmetropolitan residence) the cancer-specific subsamples contained 20 937 [11.9%] men and 34 244 [19.4%] women for colorectal cancer, 82 811 [47.0%] women for cervical cancer, and 38 356 [21.8%] women for breast cancer. Overall, 9461 men (59.3%; 95% CI, 57.6%-61.1%) were overscreened for colorectal cancer; 14 463 women (56.2%; 95% CI, 54.7%-57.6%), for colorectal cancer; 31 988 women (45.8%; 95% CI, 44.9%-46.7%), for cervical cancer; and 26 198 women (74.1%; 95% CI, 73.0%-75.3%), for breast cancer. Overscreening was more common in metropolitan than nonmetropolitan areas for colorectal cancer among women (adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 1.23; 95% CI, 1.08-1.39), cervical cancer (aOR, 1.20; 95% CI, 1.11-1.29), and breast cancer (aOR, 1.36; 95% CI, 1.17-1.57). Overscreening for cervical and breast cancers was also associated with having a usual source of care compared with not (eg, cervical cancer: aOR, 1.87; 95% CI, 1.56-2.25; breast cancer: aOR, 2.08; 95% CI, 1.58-2.76), good, very good, or excellent self-reported health compared with fair or poor self-reported health (eg, cervical cancer: aOR, 1.21; 95% CI, 1.11-1.32; breast cancer: aOR, 1.47; 95% CI, 1.28-1.69), an educational attainment greater than a high school diploma compared with a high school diploma or less (eg, cervical cancer: aOR, 1.14; 95% CI, 1.06-1.23; breast cancer: aOR, 1.30; 95% CI, 1.16-1.46), and being married or living as married compared with other marital status (eg, cervical cancer: OR, 1.36; 95% CI, 1.26-1.46; breast cancer: OR, 1.54; 95% CI, 1.34-1.77). Conclusions and Relevance: In this study, overscreening for cancer among older adults was high, particularly for women living in metropolitan areas. Overscreening could be associated with health care access and patient-clinician relationships. Additional research on why overscreening persists and how to reduce overscreening is needed to minimize risks associated with cancer screening among older adults.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2020        PMID: 32716514      PMCID: PMC8127072          DOI: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2020.11645

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  JAMA Netw Open        ISSN: 2574-3805


  40 in total

1.  Physicians and rural America.

Authors:  R A Rosenblatt; L G Hart
Journal:  West J Med       Date:  2000-11

2.  Older Adults' Preferences for When and How to Discuss Life Expectancy in Primary Care.

Authors:  Nancy L Schoenborn; Kimberley Lee; Craig E Pollack; Karen Armacost; Sydney M Dy; Qian-Li Xue; Antonio C Wolff; Cynthia Boyd
Journal:  J Am Board Fam Med       Date:  2017 Nov-Dec       Impact factor: 2.657

3.  Improving quality by doing less: overscreening.

Authors:  Mark Ebell; Jessica Herzstein
Journal:  Am Fam Physician       Date:  2015-01-01       Impact factor: 3.292

4.  Comorbidity and outcomes after surgery among women with breast cancer: analysis of nationwide in-patient sample database.

Authors:  Ahmed Dehal; Ali Abbas; Samir Johna
Journal:  Breast Cancer Res Treat       Date:  2013-04-30       Impact factor: 4.872

5.  Population-based geographic access to parent and satellite National Cancer Institute Cancer Center Facilities.

Authors:  Tracy Onega; Jennifer Alford-Teaster; Fahui Wang
Journal:  Cancer       Date:  2017-05-02       Impact factor: 6.860

6.  Prostate cancer screening and informed decision-making: provider and patient perspectives.

Authors:  D J Bowen; P A Hannon; J R Harris; D P Martin
Journal:  Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis       Date:  2011-01-18       Impact factor: 5.554

7.  Rural-Urban Differences in Access to Specialist Providers of Colorectal Cancer Care in the United States: A Physician Workforce Issue.

Authors:  Jonathan K Aboagye; Heather E Kaiser; Awori J Hayanga
Journal:  JAMA Surg       Date:  2014-06       Impact factor: 14.766

8.  Urban/Rural Differences in Breast and Cervical Cancer Incidence: The Mediating Roles of Socioeconomic Status and Provider Density.

Authors:  Jennifer L Moss; Benmei Liu; Eric J Feuer
Journal:  Womens Health Issues       Date:  2017-11-03

9.  Clinical utility of family history for cancer screening and referral in primary care: a report from the Family Healthware Impact Trial.

Authors:  Wendy S Rubinstein; Louise S Acheson; Suzanne M O'Neill; Mack T Ruffin; Catharine Wang; Jennifer L Beaumont; Nan Rothrock
Journal:  Genet Med       Date:  2011-11       Impact factor: 8.822

Review 10.  Colorectal cancer screening and surveillance in the elderly: updates and controversies.

Authors:  Lukejohn W Day; Fernando Velayos
Journal:  Gut Liver       Date:  2015-03       Impact factor: 4.519

View more
  9 in total

1.  Discontinuing Cancer Screening for Older Adults: a Comparison of Clinician Decision-Making for Breast, Colorectal, and Prostate Cancer Screenings.

Authors:  Justine P Enns; Craig E Pollack; Cynthia M Boyd; Jacqueline Massare; Nancy L Schoenborn
Journal:  J Gen Intern Med       Date:  2021-09-20       Impact factor: 6.473

2.  Types of usual sources of care and their association with healthcare outcomes among cancer survivors: a Medical Expenditure Panel Survey (MEPS) study.

Authors:  Ambrish A Pandit; Chenghui Li
Journal:  J Cancer Surviv       Date:  2022-06-10       Impact factor: 4.062

3.  "It's something I'll do until I die": A qualitative examination into why older women in the U.S. continue screening mammography.

Authors:  Laura E Brotzman; Rachel C Shelton; Jessica D Austin; Carmen B Rodriguez; Mariangela Agovino; Nathalie Moise; Parisa Tehranifar
Journal:  Cancer Med       Date:  2022-05-26       Impact factor: 4.711

4.  Utilization of Women's Preventive Health Services During the COVID-19 Pandemic.

Authors:  Nora V Becker; Michelle H Moniz; Renuka Tipirneni; Vanessa K Dalton; John Z Ayanian
Journal:  JAMA Health Forum       Date:  2021-07-02

5.  DeImplementing Ineffective and Low-Value Clinical Practices: Research and Practice Opportunities in Community Oncology Settings.

Authors:  Wynne E Norton; Worta McCaskill-Stevens; David A Chambers; Philip J Stella; Otis W Brawley; Barnett S Kramer
Journal:  JNCI Cancer Spectr       Date:  2021-02-24

6.  Patient-Reported Factors Associated With Older Adults' Cancer Screening Decision-making: A Systematic Review.

Authors:  Jenna Smith; Rachael H Dodd; Karen M Gainey; Vasi Naganathan; Erin Cvejic; Jesse Jansen; Kirsten J McCaffery
Journal:  JAMA Netw Open       Date:  2021-11-01

7.  Factors Associated With Clinician Recommendations for Colorectal Cancer Screening Among Average-Risk Patients: Data From a National Survey.

Authors:  Xuan Zhu; Emily Weiser; Debra J Jacobson; Joan M Griffin; Paul J Limburg; Lila J Finney Rutten
Journal:  Prev Chronic Dis       Date:  2022-04-14       Impact factor: 2.830

8.  Integrated interventions and supporting activities to increase uptake of multiple cancer screenings: conceptual framework, determinants of implementation success, measurement challenges, and research priorities.

Authors:  Sujha Subramanian; Florence K L Tangka; Sonja Hoover; Amy DeGroff
Journal:  Implement Sci Commun       Date:  2022-10-05

9.  Cancer screening in the U.S. through the COVID-19 pandemic, recovery, and beyond.

Authors:  Jennifer M Croswell; Douglas A Corley; Jennifer Elston Lafata; Jennifer S Haas; John M Inadomi; Aruna Kamineni; Debra P Ritzwoller; Anil Vachani; Yingye Zheng
Journal:  Prev Med       Date:  2021-06-30       Impact factor: 4.637

  9 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.