No retraction, correction or concern found when last checked on Oct 18, 2026.

Association of Neighborhood Measures of Social Determinants of Health With Breast, Cervical, and Colorectal Cancer Screening Rates in the US Midwest

Shaheen S. Kurani, Rozalina G. McCoy, Michelle A. Lampman and 9 more

JAMA Network Open · 2020

doi:10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2020.0618

Abstract

Question. How are area-level social determinants of health and rurality each associated with cancer screening practices?

Findings. Among 78 302, 126 731, and 145 550 patients eligible for breast, cervical cancer, and colorectal cancer screening, respectively, in this cross-sectional study of adults receiving primary care in primary care practices in Minnesota, Iowa, and Wisconsin, census block group–level area deprivation and zip code–level rurality were separately associated with lower rates of screening in the 3 Midwest US states.

Meaning. Individuals living in areas of greater deprivation and rurality have lower rates of cancer screening, underscoring the need for evidence-based interventions and targeted outreach to at-risk communities.

Importance. Despite advances in cancer treatment and cancer-related outcomes, disparities in cancer mortality remain. Lower rates of cancer prevention screening and consequent delays in diagnosis may exacerbate these disparities. Better understanding of the association between area-level social determinants of health and cancer screening may be helpful to increase screening rates.

Objective. To examine the association between area deprivation, rurality, and screening for breast, cervical, and colorectal cancer in patients from an integrated health care delivery system in 3 US Midwest states (Minnesota, Iowa, and Wisconsin).

Design, Setting, and Participants. In this cross-sectional study of adults receiving primary care at 75 primary care practices in Minnesota, Iowa, and Wisconsin, rates of recommended breast, cervical, and colorectal cancer screening completion were ascertained using electronic health records between July 1, 2016, and June 30, 2017. The area deprivation index (ADI) is a composite measure of social determinants of health composed of 17 US Census indicators and was calculated for all census block groups in Minnesota, Iowa, and Wisconsin (11 230 census block groups). Rurality was defined at the zip code level. Using multivariable logistic regression, this study examined the association between the ADI, rurality, and completion of cancer screening after adjusting for age, Charlson Comorbidity Index, race, and sex (for colorectal cancer only).

Main Outcomes and Measures. Completion of recommended breast, cervical, and colorectal cancer screening.

Results. The study cohorts were composed of 78 302 patients eligible for breast cancer screening (mean [SD] age, 61.8 [7.1] years), 126 731 patients eligible for cervical cancer screening (mean [SD] age, 42.6 [13.2] years), and 145 550 patients eligible for colorectal cancer screening (mean [SD] age, 62.4 [7.0] years; 52.9% [77 048 of 145 550] female). The odds of completing recommended screening were decreased for individuals living in the most deprived (highest ADI) census block group quintile compared with the least deprived (lowest ADI) quintile: the odds ratios were 0.51 (95% CI, 0.46-0.57) for breast cancer, 0.58 (95% CI, 0.54-0.62) for cervical cancer, and 0.57 (95% CI, 0.53-0.61) for colorectal cancer. Individuals living in rural areas compared with urban areas also had lower rates of cancer screening: the odds ratios were 0.76 (95% CI, 0.72-0.79) for breast cancer, 0.81 (95% CI, 0.79-0.83) for cervical cancer, and 0.93 (95% CI, 0.91-0.96) for colorectal cancer.

Conclusions and Relevance. Individuals living in areas of greater deprivation and rurality had lower rates of recommended cancer screening, signaling the need for effective intervention strategies that may include improved community partnerships and patient engagement to enhance access to screening in highest-risk populations.

References 42

1.
American Cancer Society Lifetime risk of developing or dying from cancer. https://www.cancer.org/cancer/cancer-basics/lifetime-probability-of-developing-or-dying-from-cancer.html. Published 2018. Accessed September 6, 2019.
Not in our library
2.
National Cancer Institute Cancer statistics. https://www.cancer.gov/about-cancer/understanding/statistics. Published 2018. Accessed September 6, 2019.
Not in our library
3.
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention United States cancer statistics: data visualizations. https://gis.cdc.gov/Cancer/USCS/DataViz.html. Published 2016. Accessed August 6, 2019.
Not in our library
4.
Rural–Urban and Racial/Ethnic Disparities in Invasive Cervical Cancer Incidence in the United States, 2010–2014 · 2019
No notice
5.
Goding Sauer A, Siegel RL, Jemal A, Fedewa SA Current prevalence of major cancer risk factors and screening test use in the United States: disparities by education and race/ethnicity. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev. 2019;28(4):-
Not in our library10.1158/1055-9965.epi-18-1169
6.
Caldwell JT, Ford CL, Wallace SP, Wang MC, Takahashi LM Intersection of living in a rural versus urban area and race/ethnicity in explaining access to health care in the United States. Am J Public Health. 2016;106(8):1463-1469
Not in our library10.2105/ajph.2016.303212
7.
Akinlotan MA, Weston C, Bolin JN Individual- and county-level predictors of cervical cancer screening: a multi-level analysis. Public Health. 2018;160:116-124
Not in our library10.1016/j.puhe.2018.03.026
8.
Socioeconomic and Racial/Ethnic Disparities in Cancer Mortality, Incidence, and Survival in the United States, 1950–2014: Over Six Decades of Changing Patterns and Widening Inequalities · 2017
No notice
9.
Pruitt SL, Shim MJ, Mullen PD, Vernon SW, Amick BC III Association of area socioeconomic status and breast, cervical, and colorectal cancer screening: a systematic review. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev. 2009;18(10):2579-2599
Not in our library10.1158/1055-9965.epi-09-0135
10.
Patterns and Trends in Cancer Screening in the United States · 2018
No notice
11.
Davis JL, Buchanan KL, Katz RV, Green BL Gender differences in cancer screening beliefs, behaviors, and willingness to participate: implications for health promotion. Am J Mens Health. 2012;6(3):211-217
Not in our library10.1177/1557988311425853
12.
Lin JS, Piper MA, Perdue LA, Screening for colorectal cancer: updated evidence report and systematic review for the US Preventive Services Task Force. JAMA. 2016;315(23):2576-2594
Not in our library10.1001/jama.2016.3332
13.
Nelson HD, Cantor A, Humphrey L, U.S. Preventive Services Task Force Evidence Syntheses, formerly Systematic Evidence Reviews In: Screening for Breast Cancer: A Systematic Review to Update the 2009 U.S. Preventive Services Task Force Recommendation Rockville, MD: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality; 2016.
Not in our library
14.
Melnikow J, Henderson JT, Burda BU, Senger CA, Durbin S, Weyrich MS Screening for cervical cancer with high-risk human papillomavirus testing: updated evidence report and systematic review for the US Preventive Services Task Force. JAMA. 2018;320(7):687-705
Not in our library10.1001/jama.2018.10400
15.
NEJM Catalyst Social determinants of health (SDOH). https://catalyst.nejm.org/social-determinants-of-health/. Published 2017. Accessed August 26, 2019.
Not in our library
16.
Asare M, Flannery M, Kamen C Social determinants of health: a framework for studying cancer health disparities and minority participation in research. Oncol Nurs Forum. 2017;44(1):20-23
Not in our library10.1188/17.onf.20-23
17.
Singh GK Area deprivation and widening inequalities in US mortality, 1969-1998. Am J Public Health. 2003;93(7):1137-1143
Not in our library10.2105/ajph.93.7.1137
18.
Jarmin RS Block groups for the 2020 Census: final criteria. https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2018/11/13/2018-24570/block-groups-for-the-2020-census-final-criteria. Published 2018. Accessed December 19, 2019.
Not in our library
19.
Chandak A, Nayar P, Lin G Rural-urban disparities in access to breast cancer screening: a spatial clustering analysis. J Rural Health. 2019;35(2):229-235
Not in our library10.1111/jrh.12308
20.
Zahnd WE, James AS, Jenkins WD, Rural-urban differences in cancer incidence and trends in the United States. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev. 2018;27(11):1265-1274
Not in our library10.1158/1055-9965.epi-17-0430
21.
US Preventive Services Task Force Published recommendations. https://www.uspreventiveservicestaskforce.org/BrowseRec/Index. Published 2019. Accessed August 21, 2019.
Not in our library
22.
Rossiter K What are census blocks? https://www.census.gov/newsroom/blogs/random-samplings/2011/07/what-are-census-blocks.html. Published 2011. Accessed December 19, 2019.
Not in our library
23.
Goldberg DW, Ballard M, Boyd JH, An evaluation framework for comparing geocoding systems. Int J Health Geogr. 2013;12:50
Not in our library10.1186/1476-072x-12-50
24.
US Census Bureau American Community Survey (ACS). https://www.census.gov/programs-surveys/acs. Accessed July 5, 2019.
Not in our library
25.
US Census Bureau American Community Survey (ACS): design and methodology report. https://www.census.gov/programs-surveys/acs/methodology/design-and-methodology.html. Published 2018. Accessed April 27, 2019.
Not in our library
26.
Johnson V, Wong E, Lampman M, Comparing Patient-Centered Medical Home implementation in urban and rural VHA clinics: results from the Patient Aligned Care Team initiative. J Ambul Care Manage. 2018;41(1):47-57
Not in our library10.1097/jac.0000000000000212
27.
US Department of Agriculture Rural-urban commuting area codes. https://www.ers.usda.gov/data-products/rural-urban-commuting-area-codes/. Published 2019. Accessed July 15, 2019.
Not in our library
28.
Charlson ME, Pompei P, Ales KL, MacKenzie CR A new method of classifying prognostic comorbidity in longitudinal studies: development and validation. J Chronic Dis. 1987;40(5):373-383
Not in our library10.1016/0021-9681(87)90171-8
29.
Quan H, Li B, Couris CM, Updating and validating the Charlson comorbidity index and score for risk adjustment in hospital discharge abstracts using data from 6 countries. Am J Epidemiol. 2011;173(6):676-682
Not in our library10.1093/aje/kwq433
30.
Knighton AJ, Savitz L, Belnap T, Stephenson B, VanDerslice J Introduction of an area deprivation index measuring patient socioeconomic status in an integrated health system: implications for population health. EGEMS (Wash DC). 2016;4(3):1238.
Not in our library10.13063/2327-9214.1238
31.
Kind AJ, Jencks S, Brock J, Neighborhood socioeconomic disadvantage and 30-day rehospitalization: a retrospective cohort study. Ann Intern Med. 2014;161(11):765-774
Not in our library10.7326/m13-2946
32.
ArcMap. How Hot Spot Analysis (Getis-Ord Gi*) works. https://desktop.arcgis.com/en/arcmap/10.3/tools/spatial-statistics-toolbox/h-how-hot-spot-analysis-getis-ord-gi-spatial-stati.htm. Published 2018. Accessed December 18, 2019.
Not in our library
33.
World Health Organization. Cancer: early diagnosis. https://www.who.int/cancer/prevention/diagnosis-screening/en/. Published 2019. Accessed September 6, 2019.
Not in our library
34.
Hung MC, Liu MT, Cheng YM, Wang JD Estimation of savings of life-years and cost from early detection of cervical cancer: a follow-up study using nationwide databases for the period 2002-2009. BMC Cancer. 2014;14:505
Not in our library10.1186/1471-2407-14-505
35.
Malila N Pros and cons of cancer screenings [in Finnish]. Duodecim. 2014;130(15):1493-1499.
Not in our library
36.
World Health Organization Early cancer diagnosis saves lives, cuts treatment costs. https://www.who.int/news-room/detail/03-02-2017-early-cancer-diagnosis-saves-lives-cuts-treatment-costs. Published 2017. Accessed September 6, 2019.
Not in our library
37.
Warnecke RB, Campbell RT, Vijayasiri G, Barrett RE, Rauscher GH Multilevel examination of health disparity: the role of policy implementation in neighborhood context, in patient resources, and in healthcare facilities on later stage of breast cancer diagnosis. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev. 2019;28(1):59-66
Not in our library10.1158/1055-9965.epi-17-0945
38.
Plescia M, White MC The National Prevention Strategy and breast cancer screening: scientific evidence for public health action. Am J Public Health. 2013;103(9):1545-1548
Not in our library10.2105/ajph.2013.301305
39.
Berger BM, Levin B, Hilsden RJ Multitarget stool DNA for colorectal cancer screening: a review and commentary on the United States Preventive Services Draft Guidelines. World J Gastrointest Oncol. 2016;8(5):450-458
Not in our library10.4251/wjgo.v8.i5.450
40.
Cancer Screening Test Use — United States, 2015 · 2017
No notice
41.
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) Cancer screening: United States, 2010. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 2012;61(3):41-45.
Not in our library
42.
Evans RE, Brotherstone H, Miles A, Wardle J Gender differences in early detection of cancer. J Mens Health Gend. 2005;2(2):209-217
Not in our library10.1016/j.jmhg.2004.12.012

Cited by papers we hold 2

Optimizing nature-based solutions by combining social equity, hydro-environmental performance, and economic costs through a novel Gini coefficient · 2022
Not checked
The Impact of COVID-19 on Cancer Screening: Challenges and Opportunities · 2020
No notice

Reads

Read by people on this page

None yet.

Checked or read by AI through naulon

None yet.

A person counts once a day per paper. We keep no cookie and no address: a reader is a hash that changes every day. Any month under five reads shows no number.

Are you an author?

Is this your paper?

Claim it to add your note and be paid when agents cite it. Free.