Article

Breast and cervical cancer screening for Puerto Ricans, African Americans, and non-Hispanic whites attending inner-city family practice centers.

Physician Assistant Department, D'Youville College, 320 Porter Ave, Buffalo, NY 14201, USA.
Ethnicity & disease (Impact Factor: 0.92). 02/2006; 16(4):994-1000.
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT Disparities exist for breast and cervical cancer screening among racial/ ethnic groups and low-income women. This study determines racial/ethnic variation in: 1) staging readiness for mammography, Pap smears, and clinical breast exam (CBE); 2) identifying patterns of adherence; and 3) determining sociodemographics associated with compliance with all three exams.
Cross-sectional.
Two urban family medicine clinics.
A consecutive sample of 343 women presenting for care.
Women were staged (maintainers, actors, contemplators, precontemplators, relapse contemplators, and relapse precontemplators) according to self-reported receipt of mammography, CBEs, and Pap smears.
Adherence across exams was assessed. Sociodemographics were compared among racial/ethnic groups for women adherent with all three exams.
Sixty-one percent were adherent with mammography, 93% with Pap smears, and 67% with CBEs. Thirty percent were contemplating mammography. Fifty-eight percent of Puerto Rican women were adherent with CBEs compared to 68.6% of African American and 78.5% of non-Hispanic White women. Puerto Rican women were less likely to be maintainers of CBE and more likely to be precontemplators and relapsers than non-Hispanic White women (P=.004). Forty-eight percent were adherent with all three exams. Puerto Rican women compliant with all three screens were younger and less educated than African American and non-Hispanic White
Racial/ethnic differences in screening patterns exist among women attending urban family practice centers. Primary care providers must be culturally sensitive when recommending screening and can use staging as a tool to target women most receptive to intervention.

Full-text

Available from: Carlos Roberto Jaén, May 29, 2015
0 Followers
 · 
67 Views
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Little is known about how health insurance contributes to the prevalence of chronic disease in the overlooked population of low-income urban whites. This study uses cross-sectional data on 491 low-income urban non-elderly non-Hispanic whites from the Exploring Health Disparities in Integrated Communities-Southwest Baltimore (EHDIC-SWB) study to examine the relationship between insurance status and chronic conditions (defined as participant report of ever being told by a doctor they had hypertension, diabetes, stroke, heart attack, anxiety or depression, asthma or emphysema, or cancer). In this sample, 45.8 % were uninsured, 28.3 % were publicly insured, and 25.9 % had private insurance. Insured participants had similar odds of having any chronic condition (odds ratios (OR) 1.06; 95 % confidence intervals (CI) 0.70-1.62) compared to uninsured participants. However, those who had public insurance had a higher odds of reporting any chronic condition compared to the privately insured (OR 2.29; 95 % CI 1.21-4.35). In low-income urban areas, the health of whites is not often considered. However, this is a significant population whose reported prevalence of chronic conditions has implications for the Medicaid expansion and the implementation of health insurance exchanges.
    Journal of Urban Health 06/2014; 91(4). DOI:10.1007/s11524-014-9875-6 · 1.94 Impact Factor
  • Source
    Mammography - Recent Advances, 03/2012; , ISBN: 978-953-51-0285-4
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Background Self-report may not be an accurate method of determining cervical, breast and colorectal cancer screening rates due to recall, acquiescence and social desirability biases, particularly for certain sociodemographic groups. Therefore, the aims of this study were to determine the validity of self-report of cancer screening in Ontario, Canada, both for people in the general population and for socially disadvantaged groups based on immigrant status, ethnicity, education, income, language ability, self-rated health, employment status, age category (for cervical cancer screening), and gender (for fecal occult blood testing).Methods We linked multiple data sources for this study, including the Canadian Community Health Survey and provincial-level health databases. Using administrative data as our gold standard, we calculated validity measures for self-report (i.e. sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative likelihood ratios, positive and negative predictive values), calculated report-to-record ratios, and conducted a multivariable regression analysis to determine which characteristics were independently associated with over-reporting of screening.ResultsSpecificity was less than 70% overall and for all subgroups for cervical and breast cancer screening, and sensitivity was lower than 80% overall and for all subgroups for fecal occult blood testing FOBT. Report-to-record ratios were persistently significantly greater than 1 across all cancer screening types, highest for the FOBT group: 1.246 [1.189-1.306]. Regression analyses showed no consistent patterns, but sociodemographic characteristics were associated with over-reporting for each screening type.Conclusions We have found that in Ontario, as in other jurisdictions, there is a pervasive tendency for people to over-report their cancer screening histories. Sociodemographic status also appears to influence over-reporting. Public health practitioners and policymakers need to be aware of the limitations of self-report and adjust their methods and interpretations accordingly.
    BMC Public Health 01/2015; 15(1):28. DOI:10.1186/s12889-015-1441-y · 2.32 Impact Factor