Literature DB >> 34263433

Multilevel Associations with Cancer Screening Among Women in Rural, Segregated Communities Within the Northeastern USA: a Mixed-Methods Study.

Jennifer L Moss1, Kelsey Leach2, Kelsey C Stoltzfus2, Marni Granzow2, Paul L Reiter3, Tracy Onega4,5, Lisa M Klesges6, Mack T Ruffin2.   

Abstract

We recruited women (primarily non-Hispanic White) from 14 rural, segregated counties in a Northeastern US state for an explanatory sequential study: 100 women (ages 50-65 years) completed a survey, and 16 women participated in focus groups. We sought to identify personal (e.g., healthcare mistrust) and environmental (e.g., travel time to healthcare providers) factors related to colorectal and cervical cancer screening. Quantitatively, 89% of participants were up-to-date for cervical screening, and 65% for colorectal screening. Factors interacted such that compounding barriers were associated with lower odds of screening (e.g., insurance status and healthcare mistrust: interaction p = .02 for cervical; interaction p = .05 for colorectal). Qualitatively, three themes emerged regarding barriers to screening: privacy concerns, logistical barriers, and lack of trust in adequacy of healthcare services. While cancer screening was common in rural, segregated counties, women who reported both environmental and personal barriers to screening had lower uptake. Future interventions to promote screening can target these barriers.
© 2021. American Association for Cancer Education.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Cancer screening; Cervical cancer; Colorectal cancer; Racial residential segregation; Rural; Women’s health

Year:  2021        PMID: 34263433     DOI: 10.1007/s13187-021-02069-0

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Cancer Educ        ISSN: 0885-8195            Impact factor:   2.037


  3 in total

1.  Significance of underclass residence on the stage of breast or cervical cancer diagnosis.

Authors:  J B Figueroa; N Breen
Journal:  Am Econ Rev       Date:  1995-05

2.  Barriers of colorectal cancer screening in rural USA: a systematic review.

Authors:  Hongmei Wang; Shreya Roy; Jungyoon Kim; Paraskevi A Farazi; Mohammad Siahpush; Dejun Su
Journal:  Rural Remote Health       Date:  2019-08-09       Impact factor: 1.759

3.  Methodological Aspects of Focus Groups in Health Research: Results of Qualitative Interviews With Focus Group Moderators.

Authors:  Anja P Tausch; Natalja Menold
Journal:  Glob Qual Nurs Res       Date:  2016-03-14
  3 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.