Race/Ethnicity, gender, weight status, and colorectal cancer screening

Predictors of overall and test-specific colorectal Cancer screening adherence

This study investigated predictors of overall and test-specific colorectal cancer screening (CRCS). Stool blood test (SBT) and/or colonoscopy screening were offered to primary care patients in two randomized controlled trials which assessed the impact of behavioral interventions on screening. Data were obtained through surveys and electronic medical records. Among 1942 participants, 646 (33%) screened. Exposure to interventions was associated with higher overall CRCS by twofold to threefold; older age, African American race, being married, and having a higher screening decision stage were also associated with higher overall CRCS (odds ratios = 1.30, 1.31, 1.34, and 5.59, respectively). Intervention, older age, female gender, and being married were associated with higher SBT adherence, while preference for colonoscopy was associated with lower SBT adherence. Intervention and higher decision stage were associated with higher colonoscopy adherence, while preference for SBT was associated with lower colonoscopy adherence. Among older individuals, African Americans had higher overall CRCS than whites, but this was not true among younger individuals (interaction p = .041). The higher screening adherence of African Americans over whites was due to stronger screening with a non-preferred test, i.e., higher SBT adherence only among individuals who preferred colonoscopy and higher colonoscopy adherence only among individuals who preferred SBT. Intervention exposure, sociodemographic background, and screening decision stage predicted overall CRCS adherence. Gender and test preference also affected test-specific screening adherence. Interactions involving race and test preference suggest that it is important to provide both colonoscopy and SBT screening options to patients, particularly African Americans.

Opportunities and challenges for the use of large-scale surveys in public health research: a comparison of the assessment of cancer screening behaviors

Large-scale surveys that assess cancer prevention and control behaviors are a readily available, rich resource for public health researchers. Although these data are used by a subset of researchers who are familiar with them, their potential is not fully realized by the research community for reasons including lack of awareness of the data and limited understanding of their content, methodology, and utility. Until now, no comprehensive resource existed to describe and facilitate use of these data. To address this gap and maximize use of these data, we catalogued the characteristics and content of four surveys that assessed cancer screening behaviors in 2005, the most recent year with concurrent periods of data collection: the National Health Interview Survey, Health Information National Trends Survey, Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System, and California Health Interview Survey. We documented each survey's characteristics, measures of cancer screening, and relevant correlates; examined how published studies (n = 78) have used the surveys' cancer screening data; and reviewed new cancer screening constructs measured in recent years. This information can guide researchers in deciding how to capitalize on the opportunities presented by these data resources.

Rural-urban disparities in health status among US cancer survivors

BACKGROUND

Although rural residents are more likely to be diagnosed with more advanced cancers and to die of cancer, little is known about rural-urban disparities in self-reported health among survivors.

METHODS

The authors identified adults who had a self-reported history of cancer from the National Health Interview Survey (2006-2010). Rural-urban residence was defined using US Census definitions. Logistic regression with weighting to account for complex sampling was used to assess rural-urban differences in health status after accounting for differences in demographic characteristics.

RESULTS

Of the 7804 identified cancer survivors, 20.8% were rural residents. This translated to a population of 2.8 million rural cancer survivors in the United States. Rural survivors were more likely than urban survivors to be non-Hispanic white (P < .001), to have less education (P < .001), and to lack health insurance (P < .001). Rural survivors reported worse health in all domains. After adjustment for sex, race/ethnicity, age, marital status, education, insurance, time since diagnosis, and number of cancers, rural survivors were more likely to report fair/poor health (odds ratio, 1.39; 95% confidence interval, 1.20-1.62), psychological distress (odds ratio, 1.23; 95% confidence interval, 1.00-1.50), ≥2 noncancer comorbidities (odds ratio, 1.15; 95% confidence interval, 1.01-1.32), and health-related unemployment (odds ratio, 1.66; 95% confidence interval, 1.35-2.03).

CONCLUSIONS

The current results provide the first estimates of the proportion and number of US adult cancer survivors who reside in rural areas. Rural cancer survivors are at greater risk for a variety of poor health outcomes, even many years after their cancer diagnosis, and should be a target for interventions to improve their health and well being.