Neighborhood Socioeconomic Status and Use of Colonoscopy in an Insured Population – A Retrospective Cohort Study

The University of Texas M. D. Anderson Cancer Center, United States of America
PLoS ONE (Impact Factor: 3.23). 05/2012; 7(5):e36392. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0036392
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT Low-socioeconomic status (SES) is associated with a higher colorectal cancer (CRC) incidence and mortality. Screening with colonoscopy, the most commonly used test in the US, has been shown to reduce the risk of death from CRC. This study examined if, among insured persons receiving care in integrated healthcare delivery systems, differences exist in colonoscopy use according to neighborhood SES.
We assembled a retrospective cohort of 100,566 men and women, 50-74 years old, who had been enrolled in one of three US health plans for ≥1 year on January 1, 2000. Subjects were followed until the date of first colonoscopy, date of disenrollment from the health plan, or December 31, 2007, whichever occurred first. We obtained data on colonoscopy use from administrative records. We defined screening colonoscopy as an examination that was not preceded by gastrointestinal conditions in the prior 6-month period. Neighborhood SES was measured using the percentage of households in each subject's census-tract with an income below 1999 federal poverty levels based on 2000 US census data. Analyses, adjusted for demographics and comorbidity index, were performed using Weibull regression models.
The average age of the cohort was 60 years and 52.7% were female. During 449,738 person-years of follow-up, fewer subjects in the lowest SES quartile (Q1) compared to the highest quartile (Q4) had any colonoscopy (26.7% vs. 37.1%) or a screening colonoscopy (7.6% vs. 13.3%). In regression analyses, compared to Q4, subjects in Q1 were 16% (adjusted HR = 0.84, 95% CI: 0.80-0.88) less likely to undergo any colonoscopy and 30%(adjusted HR = 0.70, CI: 0.65-0.75) less likely to undergo a screening colonoscopy.
People in lower-SES neighborhoods are less likely to undergo a colonoscopy, even among insured subjects receiving care in integrated healthcare systems. Removing health insurance barriers alone is unlikely to eliminate disparities in colonoscopy use.

Download full-text


Available from: Margaret Gunter, Sep 27, 2015
49 Reads
  • Source
    • "Audits were standardized through training and retraining and through the use of a common, structured electronic data collection instrument that was developed in Microsoft Access. The data collection tool was pre-populated with patient demographics, health care utilization history and the dates of CRC tests that were extracted from electronic databases using, in part, codes from the International Classification of Diseases, 9th Edition, Clinical Modification, Current Procedural Terminology and Healthcare Common Procedure Coding System [28]. For each test found in the medical records, the auditors collected up to three documented reasons, separately, from each of three data sources (progress notes, referral note, and procedure report) according to 28 pre-coded categories (see Additional file 1: Appendix B). "
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Accurate indication classification is critical for obtaining unbiased estimates of colonoscopy effectiveness and quality improvement efforts, but there is a dearth of published systematic classification approaches. The objective of this study was to evaluate the effects of data-source and adjudication on indication classification and on estimates of the effectiveness of screening colonoscopy on late-stage colorectal cancer diagnosis risk. This was an observational study in members of four U.S. health plans. Eligible persons (n = 1039) were age 55-85 and had been enrolled for 5 years or longer in their health plans during 2006-2008. Patients were selected based on late-stage colorectal cancer diagnosis in a case-control design; each case patient was matched to 1-2 controls by study site, age, sex, and health plan enrollment duration. Reasons for colonoscopies received in the 10-year period before the reference date were collected from three medical records sources (progress notes; referral notes; procedure reports) and categorized using an algorithm, with committee adjudication of some tests. We evaluated indication classification concordance before and after adjudication and used logistic regressions with the Wald Chi-square test to compare estimates of the effects of screening colonoscopy on late-stage colorectal cancer diagnosis risk for each of our data sources to the adjudicated indication. Classification agreement between each data-source and adjudication was 78.8-94.0% (weighted kappa = 0.53-0.72); the highest agreement (weighted kappa = 0.86-0.88) was when information from all data sources was considered together. The choice of data-source influenced the association between screening colonoscopy and late-stage colorectal cancer diagnosis; estimates based on progress notes were closest to those based on the adjudicated indication (% difference in regression coefficients = 2.4%, p-value = 0.98), as compared to estimates from only referral notes (% difference in coefficients = 34.9%, p-value = 0.12) or procedure reports (% difference in coefficients = 27.4%, p-value = 0.23). There was no single gold-standard source of information in medical records. The estimates of colonoscopy effectiveness from progress notes alone were the closest to estimates using adjudicated indications. Thus, the details in the medical records are necessary for accurate indication classification.
    BMC Cancer 02/2014; 14(1):95. DOI:10.1186/1471-2407-14-95 · 3.36 Impact Factor
  • Source
    Digestive Diseases and Sciences 10/2012; 58(1). DOI:10.1007/s10620-012-2418-7 · 2.61 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND: The value of lymphadenectomy in most localized gastrointestinal (GI) malignancies is well established. Our objectives were to evaluate the time trends of lymphadenectomy in GI cancer and identify factors associated with inadequate lymphadenectomy in a large population-based sample. METHODS: Using the National Cancer Institute's Surveillance Epidemiology and End Results Database (1998-2009), a total of 326,243 patients with surgically treated GI malignancy (esophagus, 13,165; stomach, 18,858; small bowel, 7,666; colon, 232,345; rectum, 42,338; pancreas, 12,141) were identified. Adequate lymphadenectomy was defined based on the National Cancer Center Network's recommendations as more than 15 esophagus, 15 stomach, 12 small bowel, 12 colon, 12 rectum, and 15 pancreas. The median number of lymph nodes removed and the prevalence of adequate and/or no lymphadenectomy for each cancer type were assessed and trended over the ten study years. Multivariate logistic regression was employed to identify factors predicting adequate lymphadenectomy. RESULTS: The median number of excised nodes improved over the decade of study in all types of cancer: esophagus, from 7 to 13; stomach, 8-12; small bowel, 2-7; colon, 9-16; rectum, 8-13; and pancreas, 7-13. Furthermore, the percentage of patients with an adequate lymphadenectomy (49 % for all types) steadily increased, and those with zero nodes removed (6 % for all types) steadily decreased in all types of cancer, although both remained far from ideal. By 2009, the percentages of patients with adequate lymphadenectomy were 43 % for esophagus, 42 % for stomach, 35 % for small intestine, 77 % for colon, 61 % for rectum, and 42 % for pancreas. Men, patients >65 years old, or those undergoing surgical therapy earlier in the study period and living in areas with high poverty rates were significantly less likely to receive adequate lymphadenectomy (all p < 0.0001). CONCLUSIONS: Lymph node retrieval during surgery for GI cancer remains inadequate in a large proportion of patients in the USA, although the median number of resected nodes increased over the last 10 years. Gender and socioeconomic disparities in receiving adequate lymphadenectomy were observed.
    Journal of Gastrointestinal Surgery 01/2013; 17(4). DOI:10.1007/s11605-013-2146-0 · 2.80 Impact Factor
Show more