Cervical cancer screening behaviors and proximity to federally qualified health centers in South Carolina. (April 2020)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Adams, Swann Arp; Haynes, Venice E.; Brandt, Heather M.; Choi, Seul Ki; Young, Vicki; Eberth, Jan M.; Hébert, James R.; Friedman, Daniela B.
• Is Part Of: Cancer epidemiology. Volume 65(2020:Apr.)
• Publication Date: 2020-04
• Subjects: Cervical neoplasms -- Cancer screening -- Community health centers -- Distance; Cancer -- Epidemiology -- Periodicals; Cancer -- Prevention -- Periodicals; Cancer -- Diagnosis -- Periodicals; Carcinogenesis -- Periodicals; 616.994005
• DOI: 10.1016/j.canep.2020.101681
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 1877-7821

Abstract

Highlights: Low cervical cancer screening may be attributed to lack of access among women in rural areas in South Carolina. Distance had a mixed impact on cervical cancer screening for patients in the three health centers. Center-specific environmental and contextual factors may have had an impact on the association between travel distance and screening rates. Abstract: Introduction: Lack of participation in cervical cancer screening in underserved populations has been attributed to access to care, particularly among women in rural areas. Federally Qualified Health Centers (FQHCs) were created to address this need in medically underserved populations. This study observed proximity to three health centers in relation to cervical cancer screening rates in South Carolina. Methods: Data were obtained from FQHC patient visits (from 3 centers) between 2007–2010 and were limited to women eligible for cervical cancer screening (n = 24, 393). ArcGIS was used to geocode patients addresses and FQHC locations, and distance was calculated. Modified Poisson regression was used to estimate relative risk of obtaining cervical cancer screening within one yearor ever, stratified by residential area. Results: Findings differed markedly by center and urban/rural status. At two health clinics, rural residents living the furthest away from the clinic (∼9 miles difference between quartile 4 and quartile 1) were more likely to be ever screened (RRs = 1.05 and 1.03, p-values < 0.05), while urban residents living the furthest away were less likely to be ever screened (RR = 0.85, p-value < 0.05). At the third center, only urban residents living the furthest away were more likely to be ever screened (RR = 1.02, p-value < 0.05). Conclusions: Increased travel distance significantly increased the likelihood of cervical cancer screening at two FQHC sites while significantly decreasing the likelihood of screening at the 3rd site. These findings underscore the importance of contextual and environmental factors that impact use of cervical cancer screening services.