| Title |
Breast and cervical cancer screening among Asian subgroups in the USA: estimates from the National Health Interview Survey, 2008, 2010, and 2013
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Cancer Causes & Control, April 2016
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s10552-016-0750-5 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Meredith L. Shoemaker, Mary C. White |
| Abstract |
This study describes variations in mammography and Pap test use across and within subgroups of Asian women in the USA. Using data from the National Health Interview Survey (2008, 2010, and 2013), we calculated weighted proportions for selected Asian subgroups (Asian Indian, Chinese, Filipino, Other Asian) of women reporting mammography and Pap test use. The proportion of women aged 50-74 years who reported a mammogram within the past 2 years did not differ significantly across Asian subgroups. The proportion of women aged 21-65 years who received a Pap test within the past 3 years differed significantly across Asian subgroups, with lower proportions among Asian Indian, Chinese, and Other Asian women. Recent immigrants, those without a usual source of care, and women with public or no health insurance had lower proportions of breast and cervical cancer screening test use. Patterns of mammography and Pap test use vary among subgroups of Asian women, by length of residency in the USA, insurance status, usual source of care, and type of cancer screening test. These findings highlight certain Asian subgroups continue to face significant barriers to cancer screening test use. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 10 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 6 | 60% |
| Unknown | 4 | 40% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 8 | 80% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 2 | 20% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 84 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 84 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 11 | 13% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 10 | 12% |
| Researcher | 8 | 10% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 6 | 7% |
| Student > Bachelor | 5 | 6% |
| Other | 17 | 20% |
| Unknown | 27 | 32% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 17 | 20% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 17 | 20% |
| Social Sciences | 7 | 8% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 3 | 4% |
| Economics, Econometrics and Finance | 2 | 2% |
| Other | 10 | 12% |
| Unknown | 28 | 33% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 9. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 09 June 2021.
All research outputs
#4,010,533
of 24,380,426 outputs
Outputs from Cancer Causes & Control
#454
of 2,219 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#59,823
of 303,615 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cancer Causes & Control
#3
of 27 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,380,426 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 83rd percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,219 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 10.3. This one has done well, scoring higher than 79% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 303,615 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 80% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 27 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 92% of its contemporaries.