Health care access barriers among metropolitan and nonmetropolitan populations of eight geographically diverse states, 2018.

INTRODUCTION: Nonmetropolitan populations face frequent health care access barriers compared to their metropolitan counterparts, but differences in the number of these barriers across groups are not known. Our objective was to examine the differences in health care access barriers across metropolitan, micropolitan, and noncore populations. METHODS: We used Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System data from the optional "Health Care Access" module to perform a cross-sectional analysis examining access barriers across levels of rurality using bivariate analyses and Poisson models. Access barriers were operationalized as a count ranging from 0 to 5, reflective of the number of financial barriers and nonfinancial barriers. RESULTS: Micropolitan and noncore respondents had lower educational attainment, were older, and were less racially/ethnically diverse than metropolitan respondents. They also reported more barriers, including lacking health insurance, medical debt, and foregoing care or medication due to cost. These barriers were most pronounced in non-Hispanic Black, Hispanic, and American Indian/Alaska Native nonmetropolitan populations, compared to their White counterparts. In adjusted analysis, micropolitan respondents reported more barriers compared to metropolitan (prevalence rate ratio = 1.06; 95% confidence interval: 1.02-1.10) as did women, racial/ethnic minority populations, and those with less education. CONCLUSIONS: Micropolitan populations experience more barriers to health care, and nonmetropolitan respondents report more cost-related barriers than their metropolitan counterparts, raising concerns on health care disparities and financial burdens for these underserved populations. This underscores the need to mitigate these barriers, particularly among those in micropolitan areas and minorized populations.

The Potential Impact of Oral Nicotine Pouches on Public Health: A Scoping Review.

INTRODUCTION: Oral nicotine pouches (ONPs) are a new class of nicotine products. This scoping review summarizes evidence on ONPs and explores their potential public health impact. AIMS AND METHODS: We conducted a structured literature search for empirical studies across three electronic databases through January 10, 2024. Outcomes included ONP product characteristics, use patterns, beliefs and perceptions, toxicity, and marketing and sales. RESULTS: Sixty-two studies were included, 17 were industry-funded. Most studies were from the United States. While large variations across studies were observed in ONP youth prevalence estimates, nationally representative U.S. studies find current use at 1.5% and lifetime use below 2.5% through 2023. Between 35% and 42% of U.S. adolescents and young adults have heard of ONPs, and 9-21% of tobacco-naïve youth were susceptible to trying them. U.S. adult-use estimates varied widely (0.8%-3% current; 3%-16% lifetime use) and were limited to populations with a history of tobacco use. The chemical composition of ONPs suggests fewer harmful/potentially harmful compounds at lower levels than cigarettes and smokeless tobacco (SLT), except formaldehyde. Industry-funded studies find substantially less cytotoxicity compared to cigarettes and suggest that higher nicotine-strength ONPs can deliver nicotine at levels comparable to or higher than SLT or cigarettes, although with slower nicotine release than cigarettes. Evidence on the cytotoxicity of ONPs relative to SLT is mixed. CONCLUSIONS: ONPs appear to be less toxic than cigarettes and deliver comparable nicotine, presenting an alternative for combustible product users, although key data are mainly available from industry-funded studies. Data from independent research is critically needed. Industry marketing of ONPs may encourage initiation in youth and situational and dual use in adults. IMPLICATIONS: The review provides an initial assessment of the potential role of ONPs in harm reduction and aims to determine unintended consequences of their use (youth uptake and dual-use) and identify populations that disproportionately use the product. This information is essential for tobacco regulatory bodies in determining the net public health impact of nicotine pouches.

How Complete Are Tobacco Sales Data? Assessing The Comprehensiveness Of US Tobacco Product Retail Sales Data Through Comparisons To Excise Tax Collections.

INTRODUCTION: Sales data analyses are increasingly used to guide tobacco regulatory science. However, such data do not cover specialist retailers like vape shops or tobacconists. Understanding the extent of the cigarette and electronic nicotine delivery system (ENDS) markets covered by sales data is critical to establishing such analyses' generalizability and potential biases. METHODS: Using retail sales data from Information Resources Incorporated (IRI) and Nielsen, we conduct tax gap analyses comparing states' cigarette and ENDS tax revenue to tax collection estimates based on retail sales data. For the 23 US states in both retail sales datasets, cigarette tax gap analyses were conducted for each year from 2018-2020. Four (Louisiana, North Carolina, Ohio, and Washington) of those 23 states levied per unit ENDS taxes and provided monthly tax revenue data covering January 2018 - October 2021, where we conducted monthly tax gap analyses for both cigarettes and ENDS. RESULTS: Across states covered by both sales datasets, annual mean cigarette sales in IRI and Nielsen account for 92.3% (95% CI 88.3-96.2%) and 84.0% (95% CI 79.3-88.7%) of state cigarette tax revenue, respectively. Monthly average coverage rates for ENDS sales were lower, ranging from 42.3% to 86.1% for IRI and 43.6% to 88.5% for Nielsen, but remained stable over time. CONCLUSIONS: IRI and Nielsen sales data capture almost the entire US cigarette market and a substantial but lower portion of the US ENDS market. With proper care to address shortcomings, sales data analyses can capture changes in the US market for these tobacco products. IMPLICATIONS: Policy evaluations and analyses using e-cigarette and cigarette sales data are often criticized because these data do not cover online sales or sales by specialty retailers like tobacconists.Cigarette sales data consistently cover nearly 90% of taxed sales, while e-cigarette sales data cover around 50% of taxed volumes.Retail sales data capture nearly all cigarette sales and a substantial portion of ENDS sales with relatively stable rates of coverage over time, supporting their continued use in tobacco surveillance and policy evaluation work.

The 2020 US cancer screening deficit and the timing of adults' most recent screen: a population-based cross-sectional study.

OBJECTIVE: In 2020, cancer screenings declined, resulting in a cancer screening deficit. The significance of this deficit, however, has yet to be quantified from a population health perspective. Our study addresses this evidence gap by examining how the pandemic changed the timing of American adults' most recent cancer screen. METHODOLOGY: We obtained population-based, cancer screening data from the Behavioural Risk Factor Surveillance System (BRFSS) (2010, 2012, 2014, 2016, 2018, 2020). Mammograms, pap smears and colonoscopies were each specified as a variable of mutually exclusive categories to indicate the timing since the most recent screening (never, 0-1 years, 1-2 years, 3+ years). Our cross-sectional, quasi-experimental design restricts the sample to adults surveyed in January, February or March. We then leverage a quirk in the BRFSS implementation and consider adults surveyed in the second year of the 2020 survey wave as exposed to the COVID-19 pandemic. Respondents surveyed in January 2020-March 2020 were considered unexposed. To estimate the impact of exposure to the COVID-19 pandemic on the timing of recent cancer screenings, we constructed linear and logistic regression models which control for sociodemographic characteristics associated with screening patterns, and state fixed effects and temporal trend fixed effects to control for confounding. RESULTS: In 2020, the cancer screening deficit was largely due to a 1 year delay among adults who receive annual screening, as the proportion of adults reporting a cancer screen in the past year declined by a nearly identical proportion of adults reporting their most recent cancer screen 1-2 years ago (3%-4% points). However, the relative change was higher for mammograms and pap smears (17%) than colonoscopies (4%). We also found some evidence that the proportion of women reporting never having completed a mammogram declined in 2020, but the mechanisms for this finding should be further explored with the release of future data. CONCLUSION: Our estimates for the pandemic's effect on cancer screening rates are smaller than prior studies. Because we account for temporal trends, we believe prior studies overestimated the effect of the pandemic and underestimated the overall downward trend in cancer screenings across the country leading up to 2020.

HOW COMPLETE ARE TOBACCO SALES DATA? ASSESSING THE COMPREHENSIVENESS OF TOBACCO PRODUCT RETAIL SALES DATA THROUGH COMPARISONS TO EXCISE TAX COLLECTIONS.

Introduction: Sales data analyses are increasingly used to guide tobacco regulatory science. However, such data do not cover specialist retailers like vape shops or tobacconists. Understanding the extent of the cigarette and electronic nicotine delivery system (ENDS) markets covered by sales data is critical to establishing such analyses' generalizability and potential biases. Methods: Sales data from Information Resources Incorporated (IRI) and Nielsen Retail Scanner data are used to conduct a tax gap analysis, comparing state tax collections based on cigarette and ENDS sales data to states' annual 2018-2020 cigarette tax collections and monthly ENDS and cigarette tax revenue data for January 2018 to October 2021. Cigarette analyses consider the 23 US states covered by both IRI and Nielsen. ENDS analyses consider the subset of those states with per unit ENDS taxes: Louisiana, North Carolina, Ohio, and Washington. Results: Across states covered by both sales datasets, IRI's mean cigarette sales coverage was 92.3% (95% CI 88.3-96.2%), while Nielsen's was 84.0% (95% CI 79.3-88.7%). Coverage rates for average ENDS sales were lower, ranging from 42.3% to 86.1% for IRI and 43.6% to 88.5% for Nielsen, but remained stable over time. Conclusions: IRI and Nielsen sales data capture almost the entire US cigarette market and, while coverage rates are lower, a substantial portion of the US market for ENDS as well. Coverage rates are relatively stable over time. Thus, with proper care to address shortcomings, sales data analyses can capture changes in the US market for these tobacco products.

Prioritizing rural populations in state comprehensive cancer control plans: a qualitative assessment.

PURPOSE: The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's National Comprehensive Cancer Control Program (NCCCP) requires that states develop comprehensive cancer control (CCC) plans and recommends that disparities related to rural residence are addressed in these plans. The objective of this study was to explore rural partner engagement and describe effective strategies for incorporating a rural focus in CCC plans. METHODS: States were selected for inclusion using stratified sampling based on state rurality and region. State cancer control leaders were interviewed about facilitators and barriers to engaging rural partners and strategies for prioritizing rural populations. Content analysis was conducted to identify themes across states. RESULTS: Interviews (n = 30) revealed themes in three domains related to rural inclusion in CCC plans. The first domain (barriers) included (1) designing CCC plans to be broad, (2) defining "rural populations," and (3) geographic distance. The second domain (successful strategies) included (1) collaborating with rural healthcare systems, (2) recruiting rural constituents, (3) leveraging rural community-academic partnerships, and (4) working jointly with Native nations. The third domain (strategies for future plan development) included (1) building relationships with rural communities, (2) engaging rural constituents in planning, (3) developing a better understanding of rural needs, and (4) considering resources for addressing rural disparities. CONCLUSION: Significant relationship building with rural communities, resource provision, and successful strategies used by others may improve inclusion of rural needs in state comprehensive cancer control plans and ultimately help plan developers directly address rural cancer health disparities.

Rural-Urban Disparities in Quality of Inpatient Psychiatric Care.

OBJECTIVE: Rural residents have higher rates of serious mental illness than urban residents, but little is known about the quality of inpatient psychiatric care available to them locally or how quality may have changed in response to federal initiatives. This study aimed to examine differences and changes in the quality of inpatient psychiatric care in rural and urban hospitals. METHODS: This national retrospective study of 1,644 facilities examined facility-level annual quality-of-care data from the Inpatient Psychiatric Facility Quality Reporting program, 2015-2019. Facility location was categorized as urban, large rural, or small or isolated rural on the basis of zip code-level rural-urban commuting area codes. Generalized regression models were used to assess rural-urban differences in care quality (five continuity-of-care and two patient experience measures) and changes over time. RESULTS: Rural inpatient psychiatric units performed better than urban units in nearly all domains. Improvements in quality of care (excluding follow-up care) were similar in rural and urban units. Rates of 30- and 7-day postdischarge follow-up care decreased in all hospitals but faster in rural units. Timely transmission of transition records was more frequent in small or isolated rural versus urban units (mean marginal difference=22.5, 95% CI=6.3-38.8). Physical restraint or seclusion use was less likely in rural than in urban units (OR=0.6, 95% CI=0.5-0.8). CONCLUSIONS: Rural psychiatric units had better care quality at baseline (better follow-up care, better timely transmission of transition records, and lower rates of physical restraint use) than urban units, but during 2015-2019, follow-up care performance decreased overall and more in rural than urban units.

Sociodemographic disparities in molecular testing for breast cancer.

PURPOSE: Molecular testing is a critical component of breast cancer care used to identify the presence of estrogen and/or progesterone receptors (jointly hormone receptors-HRs) and the expression of human epidermal growth factor 2 (HER2) on a tumor. Our objective was to characterize trends and predictors of lack of molecular testing among female breast cancer patients overall and by sociodemographic characteristics. METHODS: We examined data on female breast cancer patients diagnosed between 2010 and 2016 from Surveillance Epidemiology and End Results-18. Joinpoint regression analyses assessed annual percent change (APC) in lack of ER, PR, or HER2 testing. Multivariable, multilevel logistic regression models identified factors associated with lack of molecular testing. RESULTS: A nominally lower proportion of rural patients did not receive molecular testing (e.g., 1.8% in rural vs. 2.3% in urban for HER2). For all tests, a higher proportion of Hispanic and non-Hispanic Black women were not tested. Across all characteristics, improvement in testing was noted, although disparities among groups remained. For example, lack of HER2 testing improved from 3.2 to 1.7% in White patients (APC = - 10.05) but was consistently higher in Black patients 3.9 to 2.3% (APC = - 8.21). Multivariable, multilevel models showed that older, non-Hispanic Black, and unpartnered women were at greater odds of not receiving molecular testing. CONCLUSIONS: While lack of molecular testing of breast cancer patients is relatively rare, racial/ethnic, insurance status, and age-related disparities have been identified. To reduce testing and downstream treatment and outcome disparities, it is imperative for all breast cancer patients to receive molecular testing.

Rural and racial disparities in colorectal cancer incidence and mortality in South Carolina, 1996 - 2016.

PURPOSE: Colorectal cancer (CRC) is the third leading cause of cancer mortality among men and women in the United States and South Carolina (SC). Since SC has one of the highest proportions of Black (27.9%) and rural residents (33.7%), the purpose of this investigation was to describe the burden of CRC on racial disparities in rural populations. METHODS: Count data from 2012 to 2016 were obtained from the state central cancer registry using an online data retrieval system. Rural-urban status was determined using Urban Influence Codes (1-2 = urban; 3-12 = rural). Chi-square tests were calculated to examine differences in CRC stage by rurality and race. Annual percent change and annual average percent change (AAPC) were calculated to examine trends in incidence and mortality rates across rural-urban and racial groups between 1996 and 2016. RESULTS: Areas with high mortality-to-incidence ratios tended to be in rural counties. Furthermore, rural residents had higher proportions of distant stage CRC compared to urban residents, and Black populations had higher proportions of distant stage CRC compared to White populations (22.7% vs. 26.3% and 29.3% vs. 23.7%, respectively; P value < 0.05). From 1996 to 2016, Black and White urban-dwelling residents experienced a significant decline in incidence. Urban White, urban Black, and rural White populations experienced significant declines in mortality (AAPC = -2.6% vs -2.4% vs -1.6% vs -0.9%, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: Despite improvements in CRC screening in recent decades, focused evidenced-based interventions for lowering incidence and mortality among rural and Black populations in South Carolina are necessary.

The Intersection of Rural Residence and Minority Race/Ethnicity in Cancer Disparities in the United States.

One in every twenty-five persons in America is a racial/ethnic minority who lives in a rural area. Our objective was to summarize how racism and, subsequently, the social determinants of health disproportionately affect rural racial/ethnic minority populations, provide a review of the cancer disparities experienced by rural racial/ethnic minority groups, and recommend policy, research, and intervention approaches to reduce these disparities. We found that rural Black and American Indian/Alaska Native populations experience greater poverty and lack of access to care, which expose them to greater risk of developing cancer and experiencing poorer cancer outcomes in treatment and ultimately survival. There is a critical need for additional research to understand the disparities experienced by all rural racial/ethnic minority populations. We propose that policies aim to increase access to care and healthcare resources for these communities. Further, that observational and interventional research should more effectively address the intersections of rurality and race/ethnicity through reduced structural and interpersonal biases in cancer care, increased data access, more research on newer cancer screening and treatment modalities, and continued intervention and implementation research to understand how evidence-based practices can most effectively reduce disparities among these populations.

Why human papilloma virus vaccination coverage is low among adolescents in the US? A study of barriers for vaccination uptake.

INTRODUCTION: Cervical cancer and Human papillomavirus (HPV) affects women, men, and children of all races, ethnicities, and backgrounds. The objective of this study is to examine the association between adolescent (13-17 years) HPV vaccination uptake and the key factors influencing the uptake rates of HPV vaccination. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The 2016 NIS-Teen data, an annual survey conducted by the CDC to monitor vaccination uptake in the United States is used for this study. Multivariable logistic regression model was used to estimate the relationship between various factors and HPV vaccine uptake. RESULTS: Male adolescents were 0.26 times less likely to get the HPV vaccines; adolescents covered by private health insurance were 0.18 times less likely to get HPV vaccines; Hispanic adolescents were 1.47 times more likely, adolescents from other races including Asians were 1.75 times more likely to get vaccinated for HPV compared to non-Hispanic white adolescents. Adolescents from the low-income families were 1.21 times more likely to get vaccinated for HPV; adolescents from North-eastern regions of the United States were 1.62 times more likely to get vaccinated; adolescents who were not recommended for vaccination by the family physicians were 0.43 times less likely to get HPV vaccination; adolescents who did not have any safety concerns and concerns about side effects were 3.24 times more likely to get the HPV vaccine; adolescents from households that did have not orthodox religious beliefs were 13.67 times more likely to get vaccinated. CONCLUSIONS: Vaccination uptake rates are low for adolescents in the US and the results of this study identified important barriers which need to be addressed in order to improve vaccine uptake rates among the target groups which are less likely to get vaccinated. Also, knowing the sociodemographic and community level factors associated with HPV vaccination uptake status, health planners can better plan strategies to improve HPV vaccination in their local settings.