The Impact of Social Vulnerability and Race on Colorectal Cancer Screening.

IF 2.1 4区 医学 Q3 HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES
Population Health Management Pub Date : 2026-10-01 Epub Date: 2026-04-27 DOI:10.1177/19427891261446802
Charlotte Blumrosen, Claire Clark, Myla Strawderman, Jennifer Maguire, Robert J Fortuna
{"title":"The Impact of Social Vulnerability and Race on Colorectal Cancer Screening.","authors":"Charlotte Blumrosen, Claire Clark, Myla Strawderman, Jennifer Maguire, Robert J Fortuna","doi":"10.1177/19427891261446802","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Colorectal cancer (CRC) is a leading contributor to morbidity and mortality in the United States, with documented disparities in screening rates across racial lines. This study examined the intersection of race and social vulnerability in CRC screening rates. We examined 117,424 patients eligible for CRC screening in New York State. We assessed CRC screening among individuals aged 45-80 based on Healthcare Effectiveness Data and Information Set guidelines. We used Social Vulnerability Indices (SVIs) geocoded to each patient's census track. We employed log-binomial multivariate regression models with interaction terms to evaluate the effects of race and social vulnerability on CRC screening rates, while controlling for age, sex, marital status, and community type. Among 117,424 patients eligible for CRC screening, 75.2% of patients (<i>n</i> = 88,276) were effectively screened. Screening rates varied based on race (White 76.2%; Black 64.4%; <i>P</i> < 0.0001). CRC screening rates declined with increasing social vulnerability among both Black and White patients. Among patients in the most socially vulnerable groups, the adjusted rate of screening was 3.8%-8.4% lower for Black patients compared to White patients. In contrast, within the least socially vulnerable (most affluent) group, there was no statistical difference in the rate of CRC screening by race (adjusted risk ratio = 0.981; <i>P</i> = 0.201). The impact of social vulnerability was experienced disproportionately by Black patients. Among patients living in the most vulnerable census tracts, Black patients were significantly less likely to be screened for CRC compared to White patients facing similar social vulnerability. In contrast, we did not observe a difference in screening rates by race in the most affluent (least socially vulnerable) group.</p>","PeriodicalId":20396,"journal":{"name":"Population Health Management","volume":" ","pages":"297-302"},"PeriodicalIF":2.1000,"publicationDate":"2026-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Population Health Management","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/19427891261446802","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2026/4/27 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Colorectal cancer (CRC) is a leading contributor to morbidity and mortality in the United States, with documented disparities in screening rates across racial lines. This study examined the intersection of race and social vulnerability in CRC screening rates. We examined 117,424 patients eligible for CRC screening in New York State. We assessed CRC screening among individuals aged 45-80 based on Healthcare Effectiveness Data and Information Set guidelines. We used Social Vulnerability Indices (SVIs) geocoded to each patient's census track. We employed log-binomial multivariate regression models with interaction terms to evaluate the effects of race and social vulnerability on CRC screening rates, while controlling for age, sex, marital status, and community type. Among 117,424 patients eligible for CRC screening, 75.2% of patients (n = 88,276) were effectively screened. Screening rates varied based on race (White 76.2%; Black 64.4%; P < 0.0001). CRC screening rates declined with increasing social vulnerability among both Black and White patients. Among patients in the most socially vulnerable groups, the adjusted rate of screening was 3.8%-8.4% lower for Black patients compared to White patients. In contrast, within the least socially vulnerable (most affluent) group, there was no statistical difference in the rate of CRC screening by race (adjusted risk ratio = 0.981; P = 0.201). The impact of social vulnerability was experienced disproportionately by Black patients. Among patients living in the most vulnerable census tracts, Black patients were significantly less likely to be screened for CRC compared to White patients facing similar social vulnerability. In contrast, we did not observe a difference in screening rates by race in the most affluent (least socially vulnerable) group.

社会脆弱性和种族对结直肠癌筛查的影响。
结直肠癌(CRC)是美国发病率和死亡率的主要原因,在不同种族的筛查率方面存在文献差异。本研究考察了种族和社会脆弱性对结直肠癌筛查率的影响。我们在纽约州检查了117,424例符合CRC筛查条件的患者。我们根据医疗保健有效性数据和信息集指南评估了45-80岁人群的CRC筛查。我们使用社会脆弱性指数(SVIs)对每个患者的人口普查轨迹进行地理编码。在控制年龄、性别、婚姻状况和社区类型的情况下,我们采用带有交互项的对数二项多元回归模型来评估种族和社会脆弱性对结直肠癌筛查率的影响。在117,424例符合CRC筛查条件的患者中,75.2%的患者(n = 88,276)得到了有效筛查。筛查率因种族而异(白人76.2%,黑人64.4%,P < 0.0001)。在黑人和白人患者中,CRC筛查率随着社会脆弱性的增加而下降。在社会弱势群体中,黑人患者的筛查调整率比白人患者低3.8%-8.4%。相比之下,在社会最弱势(最富裕)群体中,种族间CRC筛查率无统计学差异(校正风险比= 0.981;P = 0.201)。黑人患者更容易受到社会脆弱性的影响。在生活在最脆弱的人口普查区的患者中,与面临类似社会脆弱性的白人患者相比,黑人患者接受结直肠癌筛查的可能性显着降低。相比之下,我们没有观察到在最富裕(社会最不脆弱)群体中筛查率的种族差异。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Population Health Management
Population Health Management 医学-卫生保健
CiteScore
4.10
自引率
4.00%
发文量
81
审稿时长
6-12 weeks
期刊介绍: Population Health Management provides comprehensive, authoritative strategies for improving the systems and policies that affect health care quality, access, and outcomes, ultimately improving the health of an entire population. The Journal delivers essential research on a broad range of topics including the impact of social, cultural, economic, and environmental factors on health care systems and practices. Population Health Management coverage includes: Clinical case reports and studies on managing major public health conditions Compliance programs Health economics Outcomes assessment Provider incentives Health care reform Resource management Return on investment (ROI) Health care quality Care coordination.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信
小红书