↓ Skip to main content

Predictors of Colorectal Cancer Screening in Two Underserved U.S. Populations: A Parallel Analysis

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in oncology, June 2018
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
16 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
27 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
Predictors of Colorectal Cancer Screening in Two Underserved U.S. Populations: A Parallel Analysis
Published in
Frontiers in oncology, June 2018
DOI 10.3389/fonc.2018.00230
Pubmed ID
Authors

Brittany M. Bernardo, Amy L. Gross, Gregory Young, Ryan Baltic, Sarah Reisinger, William J. Blot, Electra Diane Paskett

Abstract

Despite declining colorectal cancer (CRC) incidence and mortality rates in the U.S., significant geographic and racial disparities in CRC death rates remain. Differences in guideline-concordant CRC screening rates may explain some of these disparities. We aim to assess individual and neighborhood-level predictors of guideline-concordant CRC screening within two cohorts of individuals located within CRC mortality geographic hotspot regions in the U.S. A total of 36,901 participants from the Southern Community Cohort Study and 4,491 participants from the Ohio Appalachia CRC screening study were included in this study. Self-reported date of last CRC screening was used to determine if the participant was within guidelines for screening. Logistic regression models were utilized to determine the association of individual-level predictors, neighborhood deprivation, and residence in hotspot regions on the odds of being within guidelines for CRC screening. Lower household income, lack of health insurance, and being a smoker were each associated with lower odds of being within guidelines for CRC screening in both cohorts. Area-level associations were less evident, although up to 15% lower guideline adherence was associated with residence in neighborhoods of greater deprivation and in the Lower Mississippi Delta, one of the identified CRC mortality hotspots. These results reveal the adverse effects of lower area-level and individual socioeconomic status on adherence to CRC guideline screening.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user 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 27 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 27 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 5 19%
Student > Master 3 11%
Researcher 2 7%
Student > Doctoral Student 1 4%
Student > Bachelor 1 4%
Other 4 15%
Unknown 11 41%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 9 33%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 1 4%
Nursing and Health Professions 1 4%
Earth and Planetary Sciences 1 4%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 1 4%
Other 2 7%
Unknown 12 44%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 19 June 2018.
All research outputs
#22,767,715
of 25,385,509 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in oncology
#15,925
of 22,428 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#299,538
of 341,602 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in oncology
#120
of 153 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,385,509 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 22,428 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.0. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
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 341,602 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 153 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.