Health & Medicine - Posted by Dorsey Griffith-UC Davis on Tuesday, January 11, 2011 12:30 - 2 Comments    
1 Star2 Stars3 Stars4 Stars5 Stars (No Ratings Yet)
Loading ... Loading ...

Cancer screening: location, location, location

When combined with race, geography plays a significant role in whether or not a person is up-to-date on being tested for colon cancer. (Credit: iStockphoto)

UC DAVIS (US) — Geography accounts for significant differences in colorectal screening rates among non-whites, according to a new study.





Racial minorities have lower colorectal screening rates than whites in general, presumably because of differences in socioeconomic status, access to care, and cultural issues.

Testing for whites rarely varies regardless of location.

Details of the study are reported in the journal Cancer.

Researchers analyzed data from 53,990 Medicare enrollees ages 69 to 79 in eight states and 11 regions including: Atlanta, Ga.; rural Georgia; San Francisco-Oakland; San Jose-Monterey; Los Angeles County; Seattle-Puget Sound, Wash.; Detroit, Mich.; Connecticut; Hawaii; Iowa; and New Mexico.

Individuals were considered up-to-date on colon cancer screening if they had a colonoscopy or sigmoidoscopy within the prior five years or fecal occult blood testing within the past year. Researchers controlled for sociodemographic, medical, and environmental factors that could affect regional differences in colorectal cancer screening.

The study found that geography plays a significant role in screening rate variations among African Americans.

For example, in the state of Iowa, African Americans and whites had nearly identical screening rates, suggesting that access to screening is similar and that providers are recommending screening to Medicare enrollees regardless of their race or ethnicity.

The same was not true in the city of San Jose, Calif., where whites had similar screening rates to whites in Iowa (45 percent), but where screening rates among African Americans (29 percent) were among the lowest in the study.

Whites were more likely to be up-to-date on screening than other races everywhere, except in Hawaii, where Asian-Pacific Islanders had significantly higher screening rates than whites (52 percent vs. 38 percent).

“This is a stunning finding,” says Thomas Semrad, medical oncologist at University of California, Davis. “Screening rates among Asians in Hawaii were the highest of any group in any cancer registry area, including whites.”

A potential explanation is the influence of Japanese culture in Hawaii. Since other gastrointestinal cancers are prevalent in the Japanese population, he says, there may be more awareness of the benefits of screening.

Variation among Asian-Pacific Islanders can also be explained using ethnicity and cultural differences that may influence attitudes toward preventive care and cancer screening, Semrad says.

Other research shows that Chinese immigrants in Seattle, for example, may opt for more traditional methods such as maintenance of energy (qi) and spirit (jing shen), exercise and diet for prevention rather than medical screening.

Substantial disparities were also noted when comparing white and Hispanic screening rates in all regions that had substantial Hispanic populations. But unlike the Asian and African-American groups, there was virtually no difference in screening rates among Hispanics in the different regions.

Explaining the geographic variations in screening rates among non-whites will require much more detailed research, Semrad says. But he suspects that non-whites in some regions may be segregated within primary care practices and health systems that may be less likely to provide colorectal cancer screening. Less access to primary care and to gastrointestinal specialists also may play a significant role in these variations.

“The next step is to look at different geographic areas to see what are the determinants for minorities in terms of getting screened,” Semrad says.

“Are these culturally based? Are there problems with how health-care systems are set up? What are the barriers? If we can figure this out, we would have a target to improve some of these disparities.”

More news from UC Davis: http://www.news.ucdavis.edu/

Please wait

2 Comments

You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can skip to the end and leave a response. Pinging is currently not allowed.

Kathleen Raynor R.T. (R)(M), CDMS
Jan 12, 2011 15:01

Location, Location, Location is especially true regarding mammography. “California is the only state known to date that followed the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) recommendations. California’s goal was to save $12 Million”; according to the ASRT Scanner’s, Theresa Odle, B.A.,Els.

“By June of this year, at least 15 states had reported cuts to free cancer screening programs. In California, where state budgets were so tight that employees faced furloughs, the Department of Public Health stopped enrolling women younger than 50 or older than 74″, in it’s Every Woman Counts Program” according to the same article. To me this means that NOT every woman counts!

The USPSTF recommends biennial screening mammography for women aged 50 to 74 years.

This in my opinion, is a giant step backward for women. Twenty years ago, I can recall writing letter after letter to my Congressmen, urging them to allow Medicare to pay for annual mammogram screenings. Men were never subject to bi-annual screenings for their PSA screenings. So, when enough letters were written by women , Medicare started paying for annual mammograms for all women. Insurance companies followed suit.

The sad part is that right now, 20 states are following suit, and cutting the funding for state run free cancer screening programs.

So, California will save money but they will lose women’s lives, in the process.

John T (Jack) Garland
Jan 18, 2011 16:24

Sorry to see that this is still a problem. I recall increased attention to providing outpatient experience way back in the 1970′s (when I was teaching at Rush Medical College). I think it would be of great interest to follow-up on the same cohorts after 2years and 5 years of practice to see how they are learning to deal with the more common problems. I suspect they will have learned a lot, and those with the academic background may actually be ahead — presumably due to deeper knowledge of some areas. Thanks & best regards. JTG
[This comment is about training of physicians, but may have appeared after another article in error.]

Leave a Comment

Comment

Research news from leading universities

Daily E-News


Browse By School

Follow Futurity

RSS feedsFacebookTwitter

Media Partners

Alltop logo Pulse logo Flipboard logo Visual News logo The Conversation logo

Week's Most Discussed

  • Loading...