Skip to main content
Log in

Communication and colorectal cancer screening among the uninsured: data from the Health Information National Trends Survey (United States)

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
Cancer Causes & Control Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Objective

Colorectal cancer screening allows for both prevention and early detection of the disease, with early detection often resulting in improved prognosis. Too few Americans over 50 are screened for colorectal cancer, but among certain subpopulations screening rates are particularly low for various reasons. We examined the role of communication factors and insurance, with a specific focus on the uninsured to examine disparities in colorectal cancer screening.

Methods

We used Health Information National Trends Survey data to examine: disparities in colorectal cancer screening, by calculating proportions of subpopulations screened; and the association between communication and screening among the uninsured, by performing chi-square tests and simple logistic regression to examine the potential factors associated with screening.

Results

The uninsured were 64% less likely to be screened than the insured. Provider recommendation was the only significant communication measure, with the uninsured lacking a recommendation 98.5% less likely to be screened than those with one.

Conclusion

These data suggest expansion of programs of screening among the uninsured and more aggressive communication campaigns to promote the awareness and provider recommendation of screening as possible ways to increase screening and reduce mortality of colorectal cancer.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. It is worth noting that 33.3% of the uninsured had not heard of the tests, and therefore had a low level of awareness. In comparison, 24.6% of the insured had not heard of the tests.

  2. CAHPS are overseen by the Agency for Health Care Policy and Research and are used as tools for quality assessment.

  3. Kendall’s tau-b is a rank correlation coefficient used to assess the relationship between two ordinal variables. We used this test for variables with more than two categories in a natural order.

References

  1. Ries LAG, Eisner MP, Kosary CL, et al (eds). (2004) SEER Cancer Statistics Review, 1975–2001. National Cancer Institute, Baltimore, MD. Available at http://seer.cancer.gov/csr/1975_2001, accessed 17 September 2004

  2. Singh GK, Miller BA, Hankey BF, Edwards BK (2003) Area socioeconomic variations in U.S. Cancer incidence, mortality, stage, treatment, and survival, 1975–1999. NCI cancer surveillance monograph series, Number 4. National Cancer Institute, 2003. NIH Publication No. 03–5417, Bethesda, MD

    Google Scholar 

  3. Roetzheim RG, Pal N, Tennant C, et al (1999) Effects of health insurance and race on early detection of cancer. J Natl Cancer Inst 91(16):1409–1415

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Swan J, Breen N, Coates RJ, Rimer BK, Lee NC (2003) Progress in cancer screening practices in the United States: results from the 2000 National Health Interview Survey. Cancer 97(6):1528–1540

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Adams EK, Thorpe KE, Becker ER, Joski PJ, Flome J (2004) Colorectal cancer screening, 1997–1999: role of income, insurance and policy. Prev Med 38:551–557

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Viswanath K (2005) The communications revolution and cancer control. Nat Rev Cancer 5(10):828–835

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Curry SJ, Byers T, Hewitt M (eds). (2003) Fulfilling the potential of cancer prevention and early detection. Institute of Medicine, National Research Council, The National Academies Press, Washington, D.C

    Google Scholar 

  8. Rimer BK, Briss PA, Zeller PK, Chan EC, Woolf SH (2004) Informed decision making: what is its role in cancer screening? Cancer 101:1214–1228

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Legler J, et al (2002) The effectiveness of interventions to promote mammography among women with historically lower rates of screening. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 11:59–71

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Yabroff KR, Mandelblatt JS (1999) Interventions targeted toward patients to increase mammography use. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 8:749–757

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Rimer B (1994) Mammography use in the U.S.: trends and the impact of interventions. Ann Behav Med 16:317–326

    Google Scholar 

  12. National Cancer Institute (2003) Health Information National Trends Survey: main study interview instrument (English). Available at http://cancercontrol.cancer.gov/hints, accessed 10 September 2004

  13. Nelson DE, Kreps GL, Hesse BW, Croyle RT, Willis G, Arora NK, et al (2004) The Health Information National Trends Survey (HINTS): development, design, and dissemination. J Health Commun 9(5):443–460

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) (2002) Recommendations and rationale: screening for colorectal cancer. Available at http://www.ahrq.gov/clinic/3rduspstf/colorectal/colorr.htm, accessed 17 September 2004

  15. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (2003) Colorectal cancer test use among persons aged ≥50 years—United States, 2001. MMWR 52(10):193–196

    Google Scholar 

  16. Pignone M, Saha S, Hoerger T, Mandelblatt J (2002) A systematic review: cost-effectiveness analyses of colorectal cancer screening. Ann Intern Med 137(2):9–104. Available at http://www.ahrq.gov/clinic/3rduspstf/colorectal/colocost1.htm, accessed 17 September 2004

    Google Scholar 

  17. Brawarsky P, Brooks DR, Mucci LA, Wood PA (2004) Effect of physician recommendation and patient adherence on rates of colorectal cancer testing. Cancer Detection and Prev 28:260–268

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  18. Subramanian S, Klosterman M, Amonkar MM, Hunt TL (2004) Adherence with colorectal cancer screening guidelines: a review. Prev Med 38(5):536–550

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Screen for Life Campaign Background. Available at http://www.cdc.gov/cancer/screenforlife/background.htm, accessed 3 December 2004

  20. Cooper CP, Williams KN, Carey KA, et al (2004) Advertising campaign on a major internet search engine to promote colorectal cancer screening. BMJ 328:1179–1180

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (2003) Donated television airplay of colorectal cancer education public service announcements–United States, 1999–2002. MMWR 52(10):196–199

    Google Scholar 

  22. Randolph W, Viswanath K (2004) Lessons from mass media public health campaigns. Ann Rev Public Health 25:419–437

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. National Committee for Quality Assurance. (2004) The state of the health care quality 2004: industry trends and analysis. Available at http://www.ncqa.org/communications/SOMC/SOHC2004.pdf, accessed 11 December 2004

  24. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (2004/2005) Fact sheet: The National Breast and Cervical Cancer Early Detection Program: saving lives through screening. Available at http://www.cdc.gov/cancer/nbccedp/about2004.htm, accessed 17 September 2004.

  25. Centers for Disease Control & Prevention. National/State Study of the Capacity for Colorectal Cancer Screening and Follow-up Tests. Available at http://www.cdc.gov/cancer/colorctl/secap.htm, accessed 30 November 2004

  26. Seeff LC, Manninen DL, Dong FB, et al (2004) Is there endoscopic capacity to provide colorectal cancer screening to the unscreened population in the United States? Gastroenterology 127(6):1661–1669

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Vernon SW, Briss PA, Tiro JA, Warnecke RB (2004) Some methodologic lessons learned from cancer screening research. Cancer 101(5 supplement):1131–1145

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors wish to acknowledge the valuable assistance and insights of Paula Minihan, Elena Naumova, Mark Woodin, and Paul Hattis.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Catherine P. Cairns.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Cairns, C.P., Viswanath, K. Communication and colorectal cancer screening among the uninsured: data from the Health Information National Trends Survey (United States). Cancer Causes Control 17, 1115–1125 (2006). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10552-006-0046-2

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10552-006-0046-2

Keywords

Navigation