Geographic variation and effect of area-level poverty rate on colorectal cancer screening

57Citations
Citations of this article
79Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

This article is free to access.

Abstract

Background. With a secular trend of increasing colorectal cancer (CRC) screening, concerns about disparities in CRC screening also have been rising. It is unclear if CRC screening varies geographically, if area-level poverty rate affects CRC screening, and if individual-level characteristics mediate the area-level effects on CRC screening. Methods. Using 2006 Missouri Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System (BRFSS) data, a multilevel study was conducted to examine geographic variation and the effect of area-level poverty rate on CRC screening use among persons age 50 or older. Individuals were nested within ZIP codes (ZIP5 areas), which in turn, were nested within aggregations of ZIP codes (ZIP3 areas). Six groups of individual-level covariates were considered as potential mediators. Results. An estimated 51.8% of Missourians aged 50 or older adhered to CRC screening recommendations. Nearly 15% of the total variation in CRC screening lay between ZIP5 areas. Persons residing in ZIP5 areas with ≥ 10% of poverty rate had lower odds of CRC screening use than those residing in ZIP5 areas with <10% poverty rate (unadjusted odds ratio [OR], 0.69; 95% confidence interval [95% CI], 0.58-0.81; adjusted OR, 0.81; 95% CI, 0.67-0.98). Persons who resided in ZIP3 areas with ≥ 20% poverty rate also had lower odds of following CRC screening guidelines than those residing in ZIP3 areas with <20% poverty rate (unadjusted OR, 0.66; 95% CI, 0.52-0.83; adjusted OR, 0.64; 95% CI, 0.50-0.83). Obesity, history of depression/anxiety and access to care were associated with CRC screening, but did not mediate the effect of area-level poverty on CRC screening. Conclusion. Large geographic variation of CRC screening exists in Missouri. Area-level poverty rate, independent of individual-level characteristics, is a significant predictor of CRC screening, but it only explains a small portion of the geographic heterogeneity of CRC screening. Individual-level factors we examined do not mediate the effect of the area-level poverty rate on CRC screening. Future studies should identify other area- and individual-level characteristics associated with CRC screening in Missouri. © 2008 Lian et al; licensee BioMed Central Ltd.

References Powered by Scopus

Cancer statistics, 2008

10417Citations
N/AReaders
Get full text

Geocoding and monitoring of US socioeconomic inequalities in mortality and cancer incidence: Does the choice of area-based measure and geographic level matter? The public health disparities geocoding project

993Citations
N/AReaders
Get full text

Appropriate assessment of neighborhood effects on individual health: Integrating random and fixed effects in multilevel logistic regression

762Citations
N/AReaders
Get full text

Cited by Powered by Scopus

Causes of Socioeconomic Disparities in Colorectal Cancer and Intervention Framework and Strategies

195Citations
N/AReaders
Get full text

Factors in quality care-the case of follow-up to abnormal cancer screening tests-problems in the steps and interfaces of care

113Citations
N/AReaders
Get full text

Geographic and population-level disparities in colorectal cancer testing: A multilevel analysis of Medicaid and commercial claims data

93Citations
N/AReaders
Get full text

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Lian, M., Schootman, M., & Yun, S. (2008). Geographic variation and effect of area-level poverty rate on colorectal cancer screening. BMC Public Health, 8. https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2458-8-358

Readers' Seniority

Tooltip

PhD / Post grad / Masters / Doc 27

60%

Researcher 10

22%

Professor / Associate Prof. 8

18%

Readers' Discipline

Tooltip

Medicine and Dentistry 20

53%

Social Sciences 12

32%

Nursing and Health Professions 4

11%

Agricultural and Biological Sciences 2

5%

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free