Rural-Urban and Appalachian Disparities in Geographic Access to Colonoscopy and Screening Prevalence Across the Contiguous US.

IF 5.6 3区 医学 Q1 PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH
Sima Namin, R Eric Heidel, Martin Whiteside, Jennifer Ferris, Jonathan S Wall, James M McLoughlin
{"title":"Rural-Urban and Appalachian Disparities in Geographic Access to Colonoscopy and Screening Prevalence Across the Contiguous US.","authors":"Sima Namin, R Eric Heidel, Martin Whiteside, Jennifer Ferris, Jonathan S Wall, James M McLoughlin","doi":"10.5888/pcd23.260126","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>Colorectal cancer (CRC) incidence and mortality rates are disproportionately high in rural and Appalachian communities, where geographic barriers and specialist shortages may limit access to colonoscopy.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We conducted a national cross-sectional geospatial analysis of all contiguous US census tracts. We identified colonoscopy providers by using National Provider Identifier specialty designations and colonoscopy procedure indicators. Geographic access was quantified by using a 4-band enhanced 2-step floating catchment area (E2SFCA) method. We used small-area estimation for colonoscopy from Centers for Disease Control and Prevention PLACES to determine CRC screening prevalence. We compared E2SFCA distributions across rural-urban and Appalachian-non-Appalachian using the Kruskal-Wallis test with Benjamini-Hochberg-adjusted Dunn post hoc pairwise comparisons; we modeled screening prevalence using a mixed-effects beta regression analysis.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Urban census tracts tended to rely on delivery of colonoscopies by gastroenterologists and ambulatory surgical centers, whereas rural census tracts relied more on general surgeons, particularly for screening (vs diagnostic/therapeutic colonoscopy). Geographic access to colonoscopy providers varied little across census tracts, with only modest differences by rurality and Appalachian designation. In mixed-effects beta regression, colonoscopy access was not significantly associated with screening prevalence while both rural and Appalachian census tracts had slightly lower screening prevalence compared with their counterparts (rural vs urban: Exp(β) = 0.994; P = .02; Appalachian vs non-Appalachian: Exp(β) = 0.976; P < .001).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Better geographic access does not translate into meaningfully higher screening prevalence. Structural, socioeconomic, and referral-related barriers likely attenuate the effect of geographic proximity on screening behavior. Further integration of claims-based utilization and patient-level factors is needed to clarify pathways between access and CRC screening.</p>","PeriodicalId":51273,"journal":{"name":"Preventing Chronic Disease","volume":"23 ","pages":"E44"},"PeriodicalIF":5.6000,"publicationDate":"2026-09-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC13587705/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Preventing Chronic Disease","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.5888/pcd23.260126","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Introduction: Colorectal cancer (CRC) incidence and mortality rates are disproportionately high in rural and Appalachian communities, where geographic barriers and specialist shortages may limit access to colonoscopy.

Methods: We conducted a national cross-sectional geospatial analysis of all contiguous US census tracts. We identified colonoscopy providers by using National Provider Identifier specialty designations and colonoscopy procedure indicators. Geographic access was quantified by using a 4-band enhanced 2-step floating catchment area (E2SFCA) method. We used small-area estimation for colonoscopy from Centers for Disease Control and Prevention PLACES to determine CRC screening prevalence. We compared E2SFCA distributions across rural-urban and Appalachian-non-Appalachian using the Kruskal-Wallis test with Benjamini-Hochberg-adjusted Dunn post hoc pairwise comparisons; we modeled screening prevalence using a mixed-effects beta regression analysis.

Results: Urban census tracts tended to rely on delivery of colonoscopies by gastroenterologists and ambulatory surgical centers, whereas rural census tracts relied more on general surgeons, particularly for screening (vs diagnostic/therapeutic colonoscopy). Geographic access to colonoscopy providers varied little across census tracts, with only modest differences by rurality and Appalachian designation. In mixed-effects beta regression, colonoscopy access was not significantly associated with screening prevalence while both rural and Appalachian census tracts had slightly lower screening prevalence compared with their counterparts (rural vs urban: Exp(β) = 0.994; P = .02; Appalachian vs non-Appalachian: Exp(β) = 0.976; P < .001).

Conclusion: Better geographic access does not translate into meaningfully higher screening prevalence. Structural, socioeconomic, and referral-related barriers likely attenuate the effect of geographic proximity on screening behavior. Further integration of claims-based utilization and patient-level factors is needed to clarify pathways between access and CRC screening.

农村-城市和阿巴拉契亚地区在美国连续地区获得结肠镜检查和筛查患病率的地理差异。
在农村和阿巴拉契亚社区,结直肠癌(CRC)的发病率和死亡率高得不成比例,这些地区的地理障碍和专家短缺可能限制了结肠镜检查的获得。方法:我们对所有连续的美国人口普查区进行了全国性的横断面地理空间分析。我们通过使用国家提供者标识专业名称和结肠镜检查程序指标来确定结肠镜检查提供者。采用4波段增强2步浮动集水区(E2SFCA)方法对地理可达性进行量化。我们使用来自疾病控制和预防中心的结肠镜小区域估计来确定CRC筛查的患病率。我们使用Kruskal-Wallis检验和benjamini - hochberg校正的Dunn事后两两比较比较了E2SFCA在农村-城市和阿巴拉契亚-非阿巴拉契亚地区的分布;我们使用混合效应beta回归分析对筛查流行率进行建模。结果:城市人口普查区倾向于依靠胃肠病学家和流动外科中心提供的结肠镜检查,而农村人口普查区更多地依赖于普通外科医生,特别是筛查(与诊断/治疗结肠镜检查相比)。在人口普查区,结肠镜检查提供者的地理分布差异不大,农村地区和阿巴拉契亚地区的差异不大。在混合效应β回归中,结肠镜检查与筛查率无显著相关,而农村和阿巴拉契亚人口普查区的筛查率均略低于其他地区(农村与城市:Exp(β) = 0.994;P = .02;阿巴拉契亚地区vs非阿巴拉契亚地区:Exp(β) = 0.976;P < 0.001)。结论:更好的地理通道并不能转化为有意义的更高的筛查率。结构、社会经济和转诊相关障碍可能减弱地理邻近对筛查行为的影响。需要进一步整合基于索赔的利用和患者层面的因素,以澄清获取和CRC筛查之间的途径。
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
Preventing Chronic Disease
Preventing Chronic Disease PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH-
CiteScore
6.70
自引率
3.60%
发文量
74
期刊介绍: Preventing Chronic Disease (PCD) is a peer-reviewed electronic journal established by the National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion. The mission of PCD is to promote the open exchange of information and knowledge among researchers, practitioners, policy makers, and others who strive to improve the health of the public through chronic disease prevention. The vision of PCD is to be the premier forum where practitioners and policy makers inform research and researchers help practitioners and policy makers more effectively improve the health of the population. Articles focus on preventing and controlling chronic diseases and conditions, promoting health, and examining the biological, behavioral, physical, and social determinants of health and their impact on quality of life, morbidity, and mortality across the life span.
×
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