RetroSearch Browse

Home - News ( United States | United Kingdom | Italy | Germany ) - Football scores

Showing content from https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/23220166/ below:

Rural vs urban residence affects risk-appropriate colorectal cancer screening

Comparative Study

doi: 10.1016/j.cgh.2012.11.025. Epub 2012 Dec 4. Rural vs urban residence affects risk-appropriate colorectal cancer screening

Affiliations

Affiliation

¹ Huntsman Cancer Institute, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, Utah 84112, USA.

PMID: 23220166
PMCID: PMC3615111
DOI: 10.1016/j.cgh.2012.11.025

Item in Clipboard

Comparative Study

Rural vs urban residence affects risk-appropriate colorectal cancer screening

Allison E Anderson et al. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2013 May.

doi: 10.1016/j.cgh.2012.11.025. Epub 2012 Dec 4. Affiliation

¹ Huntsman Cancer Institute, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, Utah 84112, USA.

PMID: 23220166
PMCID: PMC3615111
DOI: 10.1016/j.cgh.2012.11.025

Item in Clipboard

Abstract

Background & aims: Little is known about the effects of geographic factors, such as rural vs urban residence and travel time to colonoscopy providers, on risk-appropriate use of colorectal cancer (CRC) screening in the general population. We evaluated the effects of geographic factors on adherence to CRC screening and differences in screening use among familial risk groups.

Methods: We analyzed data from the 2010 Utah Behavior Risk Factor Surveillance System, which included state-added questions on familial CRC. By using multiple logistic regression models, we assessed the effects of rural vs urban residence, travel time to the nearest colonoscopy provider, and spatial accessibility of providers on adherence to risk-appropriate screening guidelines. Study participants (n = 4260) were respondents aged 50 to 75 years.

Results: Sixty-six percent of the sample adhered to risk-appropriate CRC screening guidelines, with significant differences between urban and rural residents (68% vs 57%, respectively; P < .001) across all familial risk groups. Rural residents were less likely than urban dwellers to be up-to-date with screening guidelines (multivariate odds ratio, 0.65; 95% confidence interval, 0.53-0.79). In the unadjusted analysis, rural vs urban residence (P < .001), travel time to the nearest colonoscopy provider (P = .003), and spatial accessibility of providers (P = .012) were associated significantly with adherence to screening guidelines. However, rural vs urban residence (P < .001) was the only geographic variable independently associated with screening adherence in the adjusted analyses.

Conclusions: There are marked disparities in use of risk-appropriate CRC screening between rural and urban residents in Utah. Differences in travel time to the nearest colonoscopy provider and spatial accessibility of providers did not account for the geographic variations observed in screening adherence.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

Potential conflict of interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest. Part of this work was presented at The American Society of Preventive Oncology 36^th Annual Meeting, District of Columbia, March 3–6, 2012.

Figures
Figure 1

Actual travel time to the…

Figure 1

Actual travel time to the nearest colonoscopy provider for each populated one mile…

Figure 1

Actual travel time to the nearest colonoscopy provider for each populated one mile grid cell in Utah

Figure 2

Population-weighted median travel time to…

Figure 2

Population-weighted median travel time to the nearest colonoscopy provider for each Utah Zip…

Figure 2

Population-weighted median travel time to the nearest colonoscopy provider for each Utah Zip code