1
|
Zeno EE, Brewer NT, Spees LP, Des Marais AC, Sanusi BO, Hudgens MG, Jackson S, Barclay L, Wheeler SB, Smith JS. Racial and ethnic differences in cervical cancer screening barriers and intentions: The My Body My Test-3 HPV self-collection trial among under-screened, low-income women. PLoS One 2022; 17:e0274974. [PMID: 36227948 PMCID: PMC9562154 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0274974] [Citation(s) in RCA: 14] [Impact Index Per Article: 4.7] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 05/20/2022] [Accepted: 09/07/2022] [Indexed: 11/16/2022] Open
Abstract
Under-screened women are more likely to be diagnosed with invasive cervical cancer at later stages and have worse survival outcomes. Under- or un-insured women, low-income women, and minoritized groups face barriers to screening. Intention to screen is an indicator of future screening behavior, yet is understudied among low-income, under-screened women. Participants were 710 low-income, uninsured or publicly insured women ages 25-64 years in North Carolina who were not up to date on cervical cancer screening according to national guidelines. Participants were asked about barriers to screening and intention to screen. We estimated reported barriers to cervical cancer screening stratified by race and ethnicity (categorized as White, Black, and Hispanic) and assessed predictors of intention to screen. Sixty-one percent of all participants reported 5 or more barriers to screening. The most commonly reported reasons for not getting screened were lack of insurance (White: 71%, Black: 62%, Hispanic/Latina: 63%) and cost (White: 55%, Black: 44%, Hispanic/Latina: 61%). Women were more likely to have an intention to screen if they reported "it was not hard to get screening" (OR: 1.47 (1.00, 2.15)). Older women reported being less likely to intend to screen. Black women reported being more likely to intend to screen than White women. Lack of health insurance and cost were frequently reported barriers to cervical cancer screening. Increasing knowledge of affordable clinics and expanding access to Medicaid may reduce barriers and increase cervical cancer screening uptake.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Erica E. Zeno
- Department of Epidemiology, Gillings School of Global Public Health, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC, United States of America
| | - Noel T. Brewer
- Department of Health Behavior, Gillings School of Global Public Health, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC, United States of America
- Lineberger Comprehensive Cancer Center, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, NC, United States of America
| | - Lisa P. Spees
- Lineberger Comprehensive Cancer Center, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, NC, United States of America
- Department of Health Policy and Management, Gillings School of Global Public Health, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC, United States of America
| | - Andrea C. Des Marais
- Department of Epidemiology, Gillings School of Global Public Health, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC, United States of America
| | - Busola O. Sanusi
- Department of Biostatistics, Gillings School of Global Public Health, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC, United States of America
| | - Michael G. Hudgens
- Department of Biostatistics, Gillings School of Global Public Health, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC, United States of America
| | - Sarah Jackson
- Department of Epidemiology, Gillings School of Global Public Health, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC, United States of America
| | - Lynn Barclay
- American Sexual Health Association, Research Triangle Park, NC, United States of America
| | - Stephanie B. Wheeler
- Lineberger Comprehensive Cancer Center, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, NC, United States of America
- Department of Health Policy and Management, Gillings School of Global Public Health, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC, United States of America
| | - Jennifer S. Smith
- Department of Epidemiology, Gillings School of Global Public Health, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC, United States of America
| |
Collapse
|
2
|
Millar MM, Edwards SL, Herget KA, Orleans B, Ofori‐Atta BS, Kirchhoff AC, Carter ME, Nagata M, Sweeney C. Adherence to Guideline-Recommended cancer screening among Utah cancer survivors. Cancer Med 2022; 12:3543-3554. [PMID: 36029153 PMCID: PMC9939153 DOI: 10.1002/cam4.5168] [Citation(s) in RCA: 5] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.7] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 03/01/2022] [Revised: 04/04/2022] [Accepted: 08/08/2022] [Indexed: 11/12/2022] Open
Abstract
BACKGROUND Adherence to cancer screening is important for cancer survivors because they are at high risk of subsequent cancer diagnoses or recurrence. We assessed adherence to breast, cervical, and colorectal cancer-(CRC)-screening guidelines and evaluated demographic disparities among a population-based sample of survivors. METHODS A representative sample of Utah survivors diagnosed from 2012-2018 with any reportable invasive cancer was selected from central cancer registry records for a survey about survivorship needs. We estimated the proportion of eligible survivors adhering to U.S. Preventive Services Task Force screening guidelines and calculated risk ratios and 95% confidence intervals. Analyses were age-adjusted and weighted to account for sample design and nonresponse. RESULTS And 1421 survivors completed the survey (57.2% response rate). Screening adherence was 74.4% for breast, 69.4% for cervical, and 79.7% for CRC. Rural residents were more likely to adhere to breast cancer screening than urban residents (86.1% vs. 72.7%; adjusted RR = 1.19, CI = 1.05, 1.36). Higher educational attainment was associated with increased adherence to cervical and colorectal cancer screening. Younger age was associated with greater adherence to cervical cancer screening (p = 0.006) but lower adherence to CRC screening (p = 0.003). CRC screening adherence was lower among the uninsured and those without a primary care provider (45.6%) compared to those with a regular provider (83.0%; adjusted RR = 0.57, CI = 0.42, 0.79). CONCLUSIONS Surveys based on samples from central cancer registries can provide population estimates to inform cancer control. Findings demonstrate work is needed to ensure all Utah cancer survivors obtain recommended cancer screenings. Efforts should focus particularly on increasing uptake of breast and cervical cancer screening and reducing demographic disparities in CRC screening. PRECIS Despite high risk for subsequent cancer diagnosis, Utah cancer survivors are not all obtaining recommended breast, cervical, and colorectal cancer screenings. This presents a significant healthcare gap.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Morgan M. Millar
- Utah Cancer RegistryUniversity of UtahSalt Lake CityUtahUSA,Division of EpidemiologyUniversity of UtahSalt Lake CityUtahUSA,Huntsman Cancer InstituteUniversity of UtahSalt Lake CityUtahUSA
| | | | | | - Brian Orleans
- Huntsman Cancer InstituteUniversity of UtahSalt Lake CityUtahUSA
| | | | - Anne C. Kirchhoff
- Huntsman Cancer InstituteUniversity of UtahSalt Lake CityUtahUSA,Department of PediatricsUniversity of UtahSalt Lake CityUtahUSA
| | | | - Marie Nagata
- Breast and Cervical Cancer Early Detection Program, Utah Department of Health and Human ServicesSalt Lake CityUtahUSA
| | - Carol Sweeney
- Utah Cancer RegistryUniversity of UtahSalt Lake CityUtahUSA,Division of EpidemiologyUniversity of UtahSalt Lake CityUtahUSA,Huntsman Cancer InstituteUniversity of UtahSalt Lake CityUtahUSA
| |
Collapse
|
3
|
Biddell CB, Spees LP, Smith JS, Brewer NT, Des Marais AC, Sanusi BO, Hudgens MG, Barclay L, Jackson S, Kent EE, Wheeler SB. Perceived Financial Barriers to Cervical Cancer Screening and Associated Cost Burden Among Low-Income, Under-Screened Women. J Womens Health (Larchmt) 2021; 30:1243-1252. [PMID: 33851854 DOI: 10.1089/jwh.2020.8807] [Citation(s) in RCA: 20] [Impact Index Per Article: 5.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/13/2022] Open
Abstract
Background: Despite screening's effectiveness in reducing cervical cancer incidence and mortality, disparities in cervical cancer screening uptake remain, with lower rates documented among uninsured and low-income individuals. We examined perceived financial barriers to, and the perceived cost burden of, cervical cancer screening. Materials and Methods: We surveyed 702 low-income, uninsured or publicly insured women ages 25-64 years in North Carolina, U.S., who were not up to date on cervical cancer screening according to national guidelines. Participants were asked about perceived financial barriers to screening and how much they perceived screening would cost. We used multivariable logistic regression to assess the sociodemographic predictors of perceived financial barriers. Results: Seventy-two percent of participants perceived financial barriers to screening. Screening appointment costs (71%) and follow-up/future treatment costs (44%) were most commonly reported, followed by lost pay due to time missed from work (6%) and transportation costs (5%). In multivariable analysis, being uninsured (vs. publicly insured), younger (25-34 vs. 50-64 years), White (vs. Black), and not reporting income data were associated with perceiving screening costs and future treatment costs as barriers to screening. Participants reported wide-ranging estimates of the perceived out-of-pocket cost of screening ($0-$1300), with a median expected cost of $245. Conclusions: The majority of our sample of low-income women perceived substantial financial barriers to screening, particularly related to screening appointment costs and potential follow-up/future treatment costs. Providing greater cost transparency and access to financial assistance may reduce perceived financial barriers to screening, potentially increasing screening uptake among this underserved population. Clinicaltrials.gov registration number NCT02651883.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Caitlin B Biddell
- Department of Health Policy and Management, Gillings School of Global Public Health, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, North Carolina, USA.,Lineberger Comprehensive Cancer Center, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, North Carolina, USA
| | - Lisa P Spees
- Department of Health Policy and Management, Gillings School of Global Public Health, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, North Carolina, USA.,Lineberger Comprehensive Cancer Center, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, North Carolina, USA
| | - Jennifer S Smith
- Lineberger Comprehensive Cancer Center, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, North Carolina, USA.,Department of Epidemiology, Gillings School of Global Public Health, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, North Carolina, USA
| | - Noel T Brewer
- Lineberger Comprehensive Cancer Center, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, North Carolina, USA.,Department of Health Behavior and Gillings School of Global Public Health, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, North Carolina, USA
| | - Andrea C Des Marais
- Department of Epidemiology, Gillings School of Global Public Health, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, North Carolina, USA
| | - Busola O Sanusi
- Department of Biostatistics, Gillings School of Global Public Health, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, North Carolina, USA
| | - Michael G Hudgens
- Department of Biostatistics, Gillings School of Global Public Health, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, North Carolina, USA
| | - Lynn Barclay
- American Sexual Health Association, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina, USA
| | - Sarah Jackson
- Department of Epidemiology, Gillings School of Global Public Health, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, North Carolina, USA
| | - Erin E Kent
- Department of Health Policy and Management, Gillings School of Global Public Health, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, North Carolina, USA.,Lineberger Comprehensive Cancer Center, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, North Carolina, USA
| | - Stephanie B Wheeler
- Department of Health Policy and Management, Gillings School of Global Public Health, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, North Carolina, USA.,Lineberger Comprehensive Cancer Center, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, North Carolina, USA
| |
Collapse
|
4
|
Gibson EG, Gage JC, Castle PE, Scarinci IC. Perceived Susceptibility to Cervical Cancer among African American Women in the Mississippi Delta: Does Adherence to Screening Matter? Womens Health Issues 2018; 29:38-47. [PMID: 30401612 DOI: 10.1016/j.whi.2018.09.006] [Citation(s) in RCA: 9] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 03/15/2018] [Revised: 09/12/2018] [Accepted: 09/24/2018] [Indexed: 01/02/2023]
Abstract
BACKGROUND Although preventive measures have greatly decreased the national burden of cervical cancer, racial/ethnic and geographic disparities remain, including the disproportionate incidence and mortality among African American women in the Mississippi Delta. Along with structural barriers, health perceptions and cultural beliefs influence participation in cervical screening. This study examined perceived susceptibility to cervical cancer among African American women in the Delta across three groups: 1) women attending screening appointments (screened), 2) women attending colposcopy clinic following an abnormal Papanicolaou test (colposcopy), and 3) women with no screening in 3 years or longer (unscreened/underscreened). METHODS Data were collected during a study assessing the feasibility/acceptability of self-collected sampling for human papillomavirus (HPV) testing as a cervical screening modality. A questionnaire assessed demographics, health care access, and cervical cancer knowledge and beliefs (including perceived susceptibility). Participants were asked, "Do you think you are at risk for cervical cancer?", and responses included yes, no, and I don't know. Multinomial logistic regression models compared variables associated with answers among each group. RESULTS Of 524 participants, one-half did not know if they were at risk of cervical cancer (50%) or HPV exposure (53%). Between the unscreened/underscreened (n = 160), screened (n = 198), and colposcopy (n = 166) groups, age (p < .001), education (p = .02), and perceived risk of HPV exposure (p < .01) differed. Older age and younger age at first intercourse (unscreened/underscreened), family history and screening recommendations (screened), and family history and perceived risk of HPV exposure (colposcopy) were associated with perceived susceptibility to cervical cancer. CONCLUSIONS Differences in the perceived susceptibility to cervical cancer exist between African American women in the Delta. Understanding these variations can help in developing strategies to promote screening among this population with a high burden of disease.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Elena G Gibson
- University of Alabama at Birmingham, School of Public Health, Birmingham, Alabama
| | - Julia C Gage
- National Institutes of Health, Division of Cancer Epidemiology and Genetics, Bethesda, Maryland
| | | | - Isabel C Scarinci
- Division of Preventive Medicine, University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham, Alabama.
| |
Collapse
|