Women's health issues : official publication of the Jacobs Institute of Women's Health · 2017
Urban/Rural Differences in Breast and Cervical Cancer Incidence: The Mediating Roles of Socioeconomic Status and Provider Density.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Moss Jennifer L, Liu Benmei, Feuer Eric J
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Breast and cervical cancer incidence vary by urbanicity, and several ecological factors could contribute to these patterns. In particular, cancer screening or other sociodemographic and health care system variables could explain geographic disparities in cancer incidence.
METHODS: Governmental and research sources provided data on 612 counties in the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results program for rural-urban continuum code, socioeconomic status (SES) quintile, percent non-Hispanic White residents, density of primary care physicians, cancer screening, and breast and cervical cancer incidence rates (2009-2013). Ecological mediation analyses used weighted least squares regression to examine whether candidate mediators explained the relationship between urbanicity and cancer incidence.
RESULTS: As urbanicity increased, so did breast cancer incidence (βˆ = 0.23; p < .001). SES quintile and density of primary care physicians mediated this relationship, whereas percent non-Hispanic White suppressed it (all p < .05); county-level mammography levels did not contribute to the relationship. After controlling for these variables, urbanicity and breast cancer incidence were no longer associated (βˆ = 0.11; p > .05). In contrast, as urbanicity increased, cervical cancer incidence decreased (βˆ = -0.33; p < .001). SES quintile and density of primary care physicians mediated this relationship (both p < .05); percent non-Hispanic White and Pap screening levels did not contribute to the relationship. After controlling for these variables, the relationship between urbanicity and cervical cancer incidence remained significant (βˆ = -0.13; p < .05).
CONCLUSIONS: County-level SES and density of primary care physicians explained the relationships between urbanicity and breast and cervical cancer incidence. Improving these factors in more rural counties could ameliorate geographic disparities in breast and cervical cancer incidence.
METHODS: Governmental and research sources provided data on 612 counties in the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results program for rural-urban continuum code, socioeconomic status (SES) quintile, percent non-Hispanic White residents, density of primary care physicians, cancer screening, and breast and cervical cancer incidence rates (2009-2013). Ecological mediation analyses used weighted least squares regression to examine whether candidate mediators explained the relationship between urbanicity and cancer incidence.
RESULTS: As urbanicity increased, so did breast cancer incidence (βˆ = 0.23; p < .001). SES quintile and density of primary care physicians mediated this relationship, whereas percent non-Hispanic White suppressed it (all p < .05); county-level mammography levels did not contribute to the relationship. After controlling for these variables, urbanicity and breast cancer incidence were no longer associated (βˆ = 0.11; p > .05). In contrast, as urbanicity increased, cervical cancer incidence decreased (βˆ = -0.33; p < .001). SES quintile and density of primary care physicians mediated this relationship (both p < .05); percent non-Hispanic White and Pap screening levels did not contribute to the relationship. After controlling for these variables, the relationship between urbanicity and cervical cancer incidence remained significant (βˆ = -0.13; p < .05).
CONCLUSIONS: County-level SES and density of primary care physicians explained the relationships between urbanicity and breast and cervical cancer incidence. Improving these factors in more rural counties could ameliorate geographic disparities in breast and cervical cancer incidence.
Предметные рубрики MeSH
AdultAgedBreast NeoplasmsEarly Detection of CancerFemaleHealth Services AccessibilityHealth Status DisparitiesHealthcare DisparitiesHumansIncidenceMammographyMiddle AgedResidence CharacteristicsRural HealthRural PopulationSocial ClassSocioeconomic FactorsUrban HealthUrban PopulationUterine Cervical NeoplasmsVaginal SmearsWhite People