↓ Skip to main content

Health literacy and meeting breast and cervical cancer screening guidelines among Asians and whites in California

Overview of attention for article published in SpringerPlus, August 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (86th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (87th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
1 news outlet
twitter
6 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
53 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
52 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Health literacy and meeting breast and cervical cancer screening guidelines among Asians and whites in California
Published in
SpringerPlus, August 2015
DOI 10.1186/s40064-015-1225-y
Pubmed ID
Authors

Tetine Sentell, Kathryn L. Braun, James Davis, Terry Davis

Abstract

Empirical evidence regarding cancer screening and health literacy is mixed. Cancer is the leading cause of death in Asian Americans, yet screening rates are notably low. Using a population-based sample, we determined if health literacy: (1) was associated with breast and cervical cancer screening, and (2) helped to explain Asian cancer screening disparities. We analyzed the 2007 California Health Interview Survey for Asian (Japanese, Chinese, Filipino, Korean, Vietnamese, other Asian) and white women within age groups relevant to US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) screening guidelines: cervical: ages 21-65 (n = 15,210) and breast: ages 50-74 (n = 11,163). Multilevel logistic regression models predicted meeting USPSTF screening guidelines both with and without self-reported health literacy controlling for individual-level and contextual-level factors. Low health literacy significantly (p < 0.05) predicted lower cancer screening in final models for both cancer types. In unadjusted models, Asians were significantly less likely than whites to receive both screening types and significantly more likely to report low health literacy. However, in multivariable models, the addition of the low health literacy variable did not diminish Asian vs. white cancer screening disparities. Self-reported health literacy predicted cervical and breast cancer screening, but was not able to explain Asian cancer screening disparities. We provide new evidence to support a relationship between health literacy and cancer screening. Health literacy is likely a useful focus for interventions to improve cancer screening and ultimately reduce the burden of cancer. To specifically reduce Asian cancer disparities, additional areas of focus should be considered.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 6 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 52 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 52 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 8 15%
Student > Ph. D. Student 7 13%
Student > Bachelor 3 6%
Researcher 3 6%
Student > Doctoral Student 2 4%
Other 8 15%
Unknown 21 40%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 13 25%
Nursing and Health Professions 9 17%
Psychology 4 8%
Social Sciences 3 6%
Philosophy 1 2%
Other 0 0%
Unknown 22 42%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 12. 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 11 May 2021.
All research outputs
#2,678,848
of 23,312,088 outputs
Outputs from SpringerPlus
#156
of 1,853 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#35,939
of 267,208 outputs
Outputs of similar age from SpringerPlus
#15
of 122 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,312,088 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 88th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,853 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.8. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 91% 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 267,208 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 86% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 122 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 87% of its contemporaries.