Logo-hpp
2023: Two-year Impact Factor: 2.4
Scopus Journal Metrics
CiteScore (2023):7.1
 
Platinum
Open Access

Health Promot Perspect. 2022;12(4): 399-409.
doi: 10.34172/hpp.2022.52
PMID: 36852204
PMCID: PMC9958235
Scopus ID: 85149149839
  Abstract View: 660
  PDF Download: 448
  Full Text View: 151

Original Article

Examining colorectal cancer screening uptake and health provider recommendations among underserved middle aged and older African Americans

Sharon Cobb 1 ORCID logo, Tavonia Ekwegh 1, Edward Adinkrah 2, Hoorolnesa Ameli 3, Attallah Dillard 1, Lucy W. Kibe 4, Mohsen Bazargan 5,6* ORCID logo

1 Mervyn M. Dymally School of Nursing, Charles R. Drew University of Medicine and Science (CDU), CA, USA
2 Department of Public Health, College of Science & Health, CDU, CA, USA
3 Mellie’s Bank Hospital, Tehran, Iran
4 Physician Assistant Program, College of Science & Health, CDU, CA, USA
5 Department of Family Medicine, College of Medicine, CDU, CA, USA
6 Department of Family Medicine, David Geffen School of Medicine at UCLA, CA, USA
*Corresponding Author: Corresponding Author: Mohsen Bazargan, Email: , Email: mohsenbazargan@cdrewu.edu

Abstract

Background: The purpose of this study is to determine whether underserved middle-aged and older African Americans are receiving a colorectal cancer (CRC) screening test (sigmoidoscopy or colonoscopy) and if recommended by their provider. Additionally, we examined correlates of both provider recommendation and uptake of CRC screening.

Methods: Seven hundred forty African American individuals, aged 55 and older, participated in this local community cross-sectional survey. We used a multivariate technique of logistic regression.

Results: One out of three participants reported that they never received a sigmoidoscopy or colonoscopy for CRC screening. More than 31% indicted that their providers never suggested CRC testing. However, participants who indicated that their providers recommended sigmoidoscopy/colonoscopy were almost 49 times (odds ratio [OR]: 48.9, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 29.5–81.2) more likely to obtain it compared to their counterparts who were not advised to have these procedures. Our data suggest that African American men were significantly less likely than women to receive recommendations from their providers (OR: 0.70, 95% CI: 0.50-0.91). Furthermore, controlling for other variables, the following factors: 1) living arrangement (OR: 1.44, 95% CI: 1.02–2.04), 2) health maintenance organization (HMO) membership (OR: 1.84, 95% CI: 1.28–2.67), 3) number of providers (OR: 1.15, 95% CI: 1.01–1.32), 4) satisfaction with access to and quality of care (OR: 1.24, 95% CI: 1.03–1.51), 5) depressive symptoms (OR: 0.92, 95% CI: 0.86–0.98), and 6) gastrointestinal conditions (OR: 1.73, 95% CI: 1.16–2.58) were associated with obtaining a sigmoidoscopy or colonoscopy test.

Conclusion: Our findings suggest that the absence of a provider recommendation is the primary barrier preventing underserved older African Americans from obtaining CRC screening. In addition, our data revealed significant association between obtaining CRC screening and some of the predisposing characteristics of participants, satisfaction with access to and quality of care, and physical and mental health. These findings are consistent with this notion that disparities in health care for African Americans can be traced back to four primary factors: patients, healthcare providers, the healthcare system, and society as a whole, and emphasize the need for establishing theory-driven, culturally-sensitive, and cost-effective CRC screening interventions that recognize and address the constraints to cancer screening experienced by this segment of population.

First Name
Last Name
Email Address
Comments
Security code


Abstract View: 661

Your browser does not support the canvas element.


PDF Download: 448

Your browser does not support the canvas element.


Full Text View: 151

Your browser does not support the canvas element.

Submitted: 23 Dec 2022
Accepted: 24 Dec 2022
ePublished: 31 Dec 2022
EndNote EndNote

(Enw Format - Win & Mac)

BibTeX BibTeX

(Bib Format - Win & Mac)

Bookends Bookends

(Ris Format - Mac only)

EasyBib EasyBib

(Ris Format - Win & Mac)

Medlars Medlars

(Txt Format - Win & Mac)

Mendeley Web Mendeley Web
Mendeley Mendeley

(Ris Format - Win & Mac)

Papers Papers

(Ris Format - Win & Mac)

ProCite ProCite

(Ris Format - Win & Mac)

Reference Manager Reference Manager

(Ris Format - Win only)

Refworks Refworks

(Refworks Format - Win & Mac)

Zotero Zotero

(Ris Format - Firefox Plugin)