US women screen at low rates for both cervical and colorectal cancers than a single cancer: a cross-sectional population-based observational study
Background: Using screen counts, women 50–64 years old have lower cancer screening rates for cervical and colorectal cancers (CRC) than all other age ranges. This paper aims to present woman-centric cervical cancer and CRC screenings to determine the predictor of being up-to-date for both. Methods:...
| Main Authors: | , , , , |
|---|---|
| Format: | Article |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
eLife Sciences Publications Ltd
2022-06-01
|
| Series: | eLife |
| Subjects: | |
| Online Access: | https://elifesciences.org/articles/76070 |
| _version_ | 1828220981520367616 |
|---|---|
| author | Diane M Harper Melissa Plegue Masahito Jimbo Sherri Sheinfeld Gorin Ananda Sen |
| author_facet | Diane M Harper Melissa Plegue Masahito Jimbo Sherri Sheinfeld Gorin Ananda Sen |
| author_sort | Diane M Harper |
| collection | DOAJ |
| description | Background: Using screen counts, women 50–64 years old have lower cancer screening rates for cervical and colorectal cancers (CRC) than all other age ranges. This paper aims to present woman-centric cervical cancer and CRC screenings to determine the predictor of being up-to-date for both.
Methods: We used the Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System (BRFSS), an annual survey to guide health policy in the United States, to explore the up-to-date status of dual cervical cancer and CRC screening for women 50–64 years old. We categorized women into four mutually exclusive categories: up-to-date for dual-screening, each single screen, or neither screen. We used multinomial multivariate regression modeling to evaluate the predictors of each category.
Results: Among women ages 50–64 years old, dual-screening was reported for 58.2% (57.1–59.4), cervical cancer screening alone (27.1% (26.0–28.2)), CRC screening alone (5.4% (4.9–5.9)), and neither screen (9.3% (8.7–9.9)). Age, race, education, income, and chronic health conditions were significantly associated with dual-screening compared to neither screen. Hispanic women compared to non-Hispanic White women were more likely to be up-to-date with cervical cancer screening than dual-screening (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] = 1.39 (1.10, 1.77)). Compared to younger women, those 60–64 years are significantly more likely to be up-to-date with CRC screening than dual-screening (aOR = 1.75 (1.30, 2.35)).
Conclusions: Screening received by each woman shows a much lower rate of dual-screening than prior single cancer screening rates. Addressing dual-screening strategies rather than single cancer screening programs for women 50–64 years may increase both cancer screening rates.
Funding: This work was supported by NIH through the Michigan Institute for Clinical and61 Health Research UL1TR002240 and by NCI through The University of Michigan Rogel Cancer62 Center P30CA046592 grants. |
| first_indexed | 2024-04-12T16:35:30Z |
| format | Article |
| id | doaj.art-2737bf844e734860a4400068bb000845 |
| institution | Directory Open Access Journal |
| issn | 2050-084X |
| language | English |
| last_indexed | 2024-04-12T16:35:30Z |
| publishDate | 2022-06-01 |
| publisher | eLife Sciences Publications Ltd |
| record_format | Article |
| series | eLife |
| spelling | doaj.art-2737bf844e734860a4400068bb0008452022-12-22T03:25:01ZengeLife Sciences Publications LtdeLife2050-084X2022-06-011110.7554/eLife.76070US women screen at low rates for both cervical and colorectal cancers than a single cancer: a cross-sectional population-based observational studyDiane M Harper0https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7648-883XMelissa Plegue1Masahito Jimbo2Sherri Sheinfeld Gorin3Ananda Sen4Department of Family Medicine, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, United States; Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, United States; Department of Women's and Gender Studies, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, United StatesDepartment of Family Medicine, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, United StatesDepartment of Family Medicine, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, United States; Department of Family and Community Medicine, University of Illinois, Chicago, United StatesDepartment of Family Medicine, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, United StatesDepartment of Family Medicine, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, United States; Department of Biostatistics, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, United StatesBackground: Using screen counts, women 50–64 years old have lower cancer screening rates for cervical and colorectal cancers (CRC) than all other age ranges. This paper aims to present woman-centric cervical cancer and CRC screenings to determine the predictor of being up-to-date for both. Methods: We used the Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System (BRFSS), an annual survey to guide health policy in the United States, to explore the up-to-date status of dual cervical cancer and CRC screening for women 50–64 years old. We categorized women into four mutually exclusive categories: up-to-date for dual-screening, each single screen, or neither screen. We used multinomial multivariate regression modeling to evaluate the predictors of each category. Results: Among women ages 50–64 years old, dual-screening was reported for 58.2% (57.1–59.4), cervical cancer screening alone (27.1% (26.0–28.2)), CRC screening alone (5.4% (4.9–5.9)), and neither screen (9.3% (8.7–9.9)). Age, race, education, income, and chronic health conditions were significantly associated with dual-screening compared to neither screen. Hispanic women compared to non-Hispanic White women were more likely to be up-to-date with cervical cancer screening than dual-screening (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] = 1.39 (1.10, 1.77)). Compared to younger women, those 60–64 years are significantly more likely to be up-to-date with CRC screening than dual-screening (aOR = 1.75 (1.30, 2.35)). Conclusions: Screening received by each woman shows a much lower rate of dual-screening than prior single cancer screening rates. Addressing dual-screening strategies rather than single cancer screening programs for women 50–64 years may increase both cancer screening rates. Funding: This work was supported by NIH through the Michigan Institute for Clinical and61 Health Research UL1TR002240 and by NCI through The University of Michigan Rogel Cancer62 Center P30CA046592 grants.https://elifesciences.org/articles/76070cervical cancercolorectal cancerprimary careself-sampling |
| spellingShingle | Diane M Harper Melissa Plegue Masahito Jimbo Sherri Sheinfeld Gorin Ananda Sen US women screen at low rates for both cervical and colorectal cancers than a single cancer: a cross-sectional population-based observational study eLife cervical cancer colorectal cancer primary care self-sampling |
| title | US women screen at low rates for both cervical and colorectal cancers than a single cancer: a cross-sectional population-based observational study |
| title_full | US women screen at low rates for both cervical and colorectal cancers than a single cancer: a cross-sectional population-based observational study |
| title_fullStr | US women screen at low rates for both cervical and colorectal cancers than a single cancer: a cross-sectional population-based observational study |
| title_full_unstemmed | US women screen at low rates for both cervical and colorectal cancers than a single cancer: a cross-sectional population-based observational study |
| title_short | US women screen at low rates for both cervical and colorectal cancers than a single cancer: a cross-sectional population-based observational study |
| title_sort | us women screen at low rates for both cervical and colorectal cancers than a single cancer a cross sectional population based observational study |
| topic | cervical cancer colorectal cancer primary care self-sampling |
| url | https://elifesciences.org/articles/76070 |
| work_keys_str_mv | AT dianemharper uswomenscreenatlowratesforbothcervicalandcolorectalcancersthanasinglecanceracrosssectionalpopulationbasedobservationalstudy AT melissaplegue uswomenscreenatlowratesforbothcervicalandcolorectalcancersthanasinglecanceracrosssectionalpopulationbasedobservationalstudy AT masahitojimbo uswomenscreenatlowratesforbothcervicalandcolorectalcancersthanasinglecanceracrosssectionalpopulationbasedobservationalstudy AT sherrisheinfeldgorin uswomenscreenatlowratesforbothcervicalandcolorectalcancersthanasinglecanceracrosssectionalpopulationbasedobservationalstudy AT anandasen uswomenscreenatlowratesforbothcervicalandcolorectalcancersthanasinglecanceracrosssectionalpopulationbasedobservationalstudy |