Exploratory Analysis of Concordance Between Clinician-Collected and Self-Sampled Human Papillomavirus Tests in a Small Cohort of Average- and High-Risk Patients.

Objectives: Cervical cancer screening rates have stagnated, but self-sampling modalities have the potential to increase uptake. This study compares the test characteristics of self-sampled high-risk human papillomavirus (hrHPV) tests with clinician-collected hrHPV tests in average-risk (i.e., undergoing routine screening) and high-risk patients (i.e., receiving follow-up after abnormal screening results). Methods: In this cross-sectional study, a relatively small cohort of average-risk (n = 35) and high-risk (n = 12) participants completed both clinician-collected and self-sampled hrHPV testing, along with a brief phone survey. We assessed hrHPV positivity, concordance, positive predictive value (PPV), negative predictive value (NPV), sensitivity, and specificity across both methods (for types 16, 18, or other hrHPV). We also explored the relationship between test concordance and sociodemographic/behavioral factors. Results: Among average-risk participants, hrHPV positivity was 6% for both test methods (i.e., hrHPV-positive cases: n = 2), resulting in reported concordance, PPV, NPV, sensitivity, and specificity of 100%. Among high-risk participants, hrHPV positivity was 100% for clinician-collected tests but only 67% for self-sampled tests, showing varied concordance and sensitivity. Concordance was not associated with sociodemographic or behavioral factors. Conclusions: Self-sampled hrHPV testing demonstrated high accuracy for average-risk patients in this exploratory study. However, its performance was less consistent in high-risk patients who had already received an abnormal screening result, which could be attributed to spontaneous viral clearance over time. The limited number of participants, particularly HPV-positive cases, suggests caution in interpreting these results. Further research with larger cohorts is necessary to validate these findings and to explore the integration of self-sampled hrHPV testing into routine clinical care, particularly for patients with a history of cervical abnormalities. Clinical Trial Registration: NCT04591977, NCT04585243.

Rural/Urban differences in uptake of preventive healthcare services: Variability in observed relationships across measures of rurality.

Rural residents are generally less likely to receive preventive healthcare than are urban residents, but variable measurement of rurality introduces inconsistency to these findings. We assessed the relationships between perceived and objective measures of rurality and uptake of preventive healthcare. In our sample, rural participants generally had equal or higher uptake of healthcare (i.e. private health insurance, check-up in the past year, being up-to-date on colorectal and cervical cancer screening) than urban participants. Importantly, the perceived measure of rurality performed similarly to the objective measures, suggesting that participant report could be a valid way to assess rurality in health studies. Significance for Public Health The ability to access routine preventive healthcare is a key component of public health. Comparing uptake of cancer screening in rural versus urban areas is one way to assess equity of healthcare access. Generally, rural areas have a higher burden of cancer than urban areas. The built environment, socioeconomic status, and patient perceptions can impact an individual's access to routine cancer screening. Preventive healthcare is of great importance to public health as a whole because screening can facilitate earlier diagnosis and more successful treatment for many preventable cancers, which may ultimately increase the quality and quantity of life.

Patterns of Cancer-Related Healthcare Access across Pennsylvania: Analysis of Novel Census Tract-Level Indicators of Persistent Poverty.

BACKGROUND: Persistent poverty census tracts have had ≥20% of the population living below the federal poverty line for 30+ years. We assessed the relationship between persistent poverty and cancer-related healthcare access across census tracts in Pennsylvania. METHODS: We gathered publicly available census tract-level data on persistent poverty, rurality, and sociodemographic variables, as well as potential access to healthcare (i.e., prevalence of health insurance, last-year check-up), realized access to healthcare (i.e., prevalence of screening for cervical, breast, and colorectal cancers), and self-reported cancer diagnosis. We used multivariable spatial regression models to assess the relationships between persistent poverty and each healthcare access indicator. RESULTS: Among Pennsylvania's census tracts, 2,789 (89.8%) were classified as non-persistent poverty, and 316 (10.2%) were classified as persistent poverty (113 did not have valid data on persistent poverty). Persistent poverty tracts had lower prevalence of health insurance [estimate = -1.70, standard error (SE) = 0.10], screening for cervical cancer (estimate = -4.00, SE = 0.17) and colorectal cancer (estimate = -3.13, SE = 0.20), and cancer diagnosis (estimate = -0.34, SE = 0.05), compared with non-persistent poverty tracts (all P < 0.001). However, persistent poverty tracts had higher prevalence of last-year check-up (estimate = 0.22, SE = 0.08) and screening for breast cancer (estimate = 0.56, SE = 0.15; both P < 0.01). CONCLUSIONS: Relationships between persistent poverty and cancer-related healthcare access outcomes differed in direction and magnitude. Health promotion interventions should leverage data at fine-grained geographic units (e.g., census tracts) to motivate focus on communities or outcomes. IMPACT: Future studies should extend these analyses to other states and outcomes to inform public health research and interventions to reduce geographic disparities.

Examining the roles of travel distance, medical mistrust, and cancer fatalism in the uptake of clinical cancer prevention among women in rural and urban US communities: A secondary data analysis.

Introduction: Rural adults are less likely to receive cancer screening than urban adults, likely due to systematic differences in community- and individual-level factors. The purpose of this study was to analyze the relative contributions of rurality, travel time, medical mistrust, and cancer fatalism in explaining uptake of clinical cancer prevention services. Methods: We conducted a secondary data analysis of 2019-2020 survey data from women, ages 45-65, in rural and urban counties in central Pennsylvania, examining rurality, travel time to a primary care provider, medical mistrust, and cancer fatalism, as well as uptake of guideline-recommended colorectal cancer screening, cervical cancer screening, and preventive check-up. Final models used multivariable logistic regression to assess the relationships among study variables, controlling for participant demographics. Results: Among 474 participants, 48.9 % resided in rural counties. Most participants had received clinical cancer prevention services (colorectal cancer screening: 55.4 %; cervical cancer screening: 82.8 %; preventive check-up in the last year: 75.4 %). Uptake of services was less common among participants with higher medical mistrust (colorectal cancer screening: adjusted odds ratio [aOR] = 0.87, 95 % confidence interval [CI] = 0.76-1.00; cervical cancer screening: aOR = 0.79, 95 % CI = 0.63-1.00; last-year check-up: aOR = 0.74, 95 % CI = 0.63-0.88). Conclusions: Patient attitudes, particularly medical mistrust, may contribute to rural/urban disparities in clinical cancer prevention among women. Community- and individual-level interventions are needed to improve cancer outcomes in rural areas.

Addressing Social Risks to Accelerate Health Equity in Cancer Prevention and Control.

Addressing social risks in cancer prevention and control presents a new opportunity for accelerating cancer health equity. As members of the American Society of Preventive Oncology (ASPO) Cancer Health Disparities Special Interest Group, we describe the current state of science on social risks in oncology research and practice. To reduce and eliminate the unjust burden of cancer, we also provide recommendations for multilevel research examining social risks as contributors to inequities and the development of social risks-focused interventions. Suggestions for research and practice are provided within levels of the socio-ecological model, including the interpersonal, organizational, community, and policy levels.

Self-sampling tools to increase cancer screening among underserved patients: a pilot randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Screening can reduce cancer mortality, but uptake is suboptimal and characterized by disparities. Home-based self-sampling can facilitate screening for colorectal cancer (with stool tests, eg, fecal immunochemical tests) and for cervical cancer (with self-collected human papillomavirus tests), especially among patients who face barriers to accessing health care. Additional data are needed on feasibility and potential effects of self-sampling tools for cancer screening among underserved patients. METHODS: We conducted a pilot randomized controlled trial with patients (female, ages 50-65 years, out of date with colorectal and cervical cancer screening) recruited from federally qualified health centers in rural and racially segregated counties in Pennsylvania. Participants in the standard-of-care arm (n = 24) received screening reminder letters. Participants in the self-sampling arm (n = 24) received self-sampling tools for fecal immunochemical tests and human papillomavirus testing. We assessed uptake of screening (10-week follow-up), self-sampling screening outcomes, and psychosocial variables. Analyses used Fisher exact tests to assess the effect of study arm on outcomes. RESULTS: Cancer screening was higher in the self-sampling arm than the standard-of-care arm (colorectal: 75% vs 13%, respectively, odds ratio = 31.32, 95% confidence interval = 5.20 to 289.33; cervical: 79% vs 8%, odds ratio = 72.03, 95% confidence interval = 9.15 to 1141.41). Among participants who returned the self-sampling tools, the prevalence of abnormal findings was 24% for colorectal and 18% for cervical cancer screening. Cancer screening knowledge was positively associated with uptake (P < .05). CONCLUSIONS: Self-sampling tools can increase colorectal and cervical cancer screening among unscreened, underserved patients. Increasing the use of self-sampling tools can improve primary care and cancer detection among underserved patients. CLINICAL TRIALS REGISTRATION NUMBER: STUDY00015480.

We are all in this together: Rurality, Social cohesion, and COVID-19 prevention behaviors.

BACKGROUND: Social cohesion refers to an individual's sense of belonging to their community and correlates with health outcomes. Rural communities tend to have higher social cohesion than urban communities. Social cohesion is relatively understudied as a factor impacting COVID-19 prevention behaviors. This study explores the associations between social cohesion, rurality, and COVID-19 prevention behaviors. METHODS: Participants completed a questionnaire assessing rurality; social cohesion (subscales of (1) attraction to neighborhood, (2) acts of neighboring, and (3) sense of community); COVID-19 behaviors; and demographics. Chi-square tests were used to characterize participant demographics and COVID-19 behaviors. Bivariate and multivariable logistic regression models were used to analyze the relationship between COVID-19 outcomes and rurality, social cohesion, and demographics. RESULTS: Most participants (n = 2,926) were non-Hispanic White (78.2%) and married (60.4%); 36.9% were rural. Rural participants were less likely than urban participants to practice social distancing (78.7% vs 90.6%, P<.001) or stay home when sick (87.7% vs 93.5%, P<.001). Social distancing was more common among participants with higher "attraction to neighborhood" scores (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] = 2.09; 95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.26-3.47) but was less common among participants with higher "acts of neighboring" scores (aOR = 0.59; 95% CI = 0.40-0.88). Staying home when sick was also more common among participants with higher scores on "attraction to neighborhood" (aOR = 2.12; 95% CI = 1.15-3.91), and less common among participants with higher scores on "acts of neighboring" (aOR = 0.53; 95% CI = 0.33-0.86). CONCLUSIONS: Efforts to maximize COVID-19 behavioral prevention, particularly among rural communities, should emphasize the importance of protecting the health of one's neighbors and how to support one's neighbors without face-to-face interactions.

Hospital- and county-level characteristics explain geographic variability in prices of cancer-related procedures: Implications for policy and interventions.

BACKGROUND: Healthcare costs in the U.S. are high and variable, which can hinder access and impact health outcomes across communities. This study examined hospital- and county-level characteristics to identify factors that explain geographic variation in prices for four cancer-related procedures. METHODS: Data sources included Turquoise Health, which compiles publicly-available price data from U.S. hospitals. We examined list prices for four procedures: abdominal ultrasound, diagnostic colonoscopy, brain MRI, and pelvis CT scan, which we linked to characteristics of hospitals (e.g., number of beds) and counties (e.g., metropolitan status). We used multilevel linear regression models to assess multivariable relationships between prices and hospital- and county-level characteristics. Supplementary analyses repeated these models using procedures prices for commercial insurance plans. RESULTS: For each procedure, list prices varied across counties (intraclass correlation: abdominal ultrasound = 23.2%; colonoscopy = 17.1%; brain MRI = 37.2%; pelvis CT = 50.9%). List prices for each procedure were associated with hospital ownership (all p < 0.001) and percent of population without health insurance (all p < 0.05). For example, list prices for abdominal ultrasound were higher for proprietary versus Government-owned hospitals (ß = 539.10, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 256.12, 822.08, p < 0.001) and for hospitals in counties with more uninsured residents (ß = 23.44, 95% CI: 2.55, 44.33, p = 0.03). Commercial insurance prices were negatively associated with metropolitan status. CONCLUSIONS: Prices for cancer-related healthcare procedures varied substantially, with considerable heterogeneity associated with county location as well as county-level social determinants of health (e.g., health insurance coverage). Interventions and policy changes are needed to alleviate the financial burden of cancer care among patients, including geographic variation in prices for cancer-related procedures.

The Impact of the COVID-19 Pandemic on Cancer Mortality in Pennsylvania: A Retrospective Study with Geospatial Analysis.

BACKGROUND: We sought to quantify the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on cancer mortality and identify associated factors in Pennsylvania. METHODS: The retrospective study analyzed cross-sectional cancer mortality data from CDC WONDER for 2015 through 2020 for Pennsylvania and its 67 counties. The spatial distributions of 2019, 2020, and percentage change in age-adjusted mortality rates by county were analyzed via choropleth maps and spatial autocorrelation. A Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test was used to analyze whether the rates differed between 2019 and 2020. Quasi-Poisson and geographically weighted regression at the county level were used to assess the association between the 2019 rates, sex (percent female), race (percent non-White), ethnicity (percent Hispanic/Latino), rural-urban continuum codes, and socioeconomic status with the 2020 rates. RESULTS: At the state level, the rate in 2020 did not reflect the declining annual trend (-2.7 per 100,000) in the rate since 2015. Twenty-six counties had an increase in the rate in 2020. Of the factors examined, the 2019 rates were positively associated with the 2020 rates, and the impact of sociodemographic and geographic factors on the 2020 rates varied by county. CONCLUSIONS: In Pennsylvania, the 2020 cancer mortality rates did not decline as much as reported before the COVID-19 pandemic. The top five cancer types by rate were the same type for 2019 and 2020. Future cancer control efforts may need to address the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on trends and geospatial distribution in cancer mortality.

Increasing the adoption of evidence-based communication practices for HPV vaccination in primary care clinics: The HPV ECHO study protocol for a cluster randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: The safe, highly-effective human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccine remains underused in the US. The Announcement Approach Training (AAT) has been shown to effectively increase HPV vaccine uptake by training providers to make strong vaccine recommendations and answer parents' common questions. Systems communications, like recall notices, can further improve HPV vaccination by reducing missed clinical opportunities for vaccination. Never tested in supporting HPV vaccination, the ECHO (Extension for Community Healthcare Outcomes) model is a proven implementation strategy to increase best practices among healthcare providers. This trial uses a hybrid effectiveness-implementation design (type II) to evaluate two ECHO-delivered interventions intended to increase HPV vaccination rates. METHODS: This 3-arm cluster randomized controlled trial will be conducted in 36 primary care clinics in Pennsylvania. Aim 1 evaluates the impact of HPV ECHO (AAT to providers) and HPV ECHO+ (AAT to providers plus recall notices to vaccine-declining parents) versus control on HPV vaccination (≥1 dose) among adolescents, ages 11-14, between baseline and 12-month follow-up (primary outcome). Using a convergent mixed-methods approach, Aim 2 evaluates the implementation of the HPV ECHO and HPV ECHO+ interventions. Aim 3 explores exposure to and impact of vaccine information from providers and other sources (e.g., social media) on secondary acceptance among 200 HPV vaccine-declining parents within 12 months. DISCUSSION: We expect to demonstrate the effectiveness and evaluate the implementation of two highly scalable interventions to increase HPV vaccination in primary care clinics. Our study seeks to address the communication needs of both providers and parents, increase HPV vaccination, and, eventually, prevent HPV-related cancers. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.govNCT04587167. Registered on October 14, 2020.

Behaviors and Advocacy Related to COVID-19 among Cancer Patients: The Health Belief Model and Opportunities for Messaging and Education.

Cancer patients have an increased risk of severe COVID-19 outcomes and were recommended to be vaccinated, wear a mask, practice social distancing, and increase hand hygiene. We used the Health Belief Model (HBM) to identify constructs that were associated with the likelihood of adhering to and advocating for CDC COVID-19 prevention recommendations. We surveyed adult cancer patients who had an onsite appointment at the Penn State Cancer Institute or at the Hematology and Oncology Associates of Northeastern Pennsylvania. Survey measures included adherence to and informing others of COVID-19 recommendations as well as HBM constructs. Relationships between HBM constructs and outcomes were assessed with Spearman's correlation and multivariable ordinal logistic regression. Of the 106 participants who completed the survey for our objectives of interest, 76% always wore a mask, 29% always practiced social distancing, and 24% washed their hands at least 10 times a day. Limited advocacy behaviors were captured for the COVID-19 vaccine (30%), social distancing (36%), and wearing masks (27%). Perceived benefits, perceived barriers, and cues-to-action were positively associated with the likelihood of adherence or advocacy of COVID-19 recommendations among cancer patients, whereas perceived susceptibility and self-efficacy were negatively associated with the likelihood of adherence or advocacy of COVID-19 recommendations among cancer patients. Perceived benefits may be the strongest predictor for adherence and advocacy for specific COVID-19 guidelines. Future messaging and educational campaigns focused on improving adherence to or advocacy of specific health behaviors should be informed by the HBM and originate from multiple outlets.

The role of social cohesion in explaining rural/urban differences in healthcare access and health status among older adults in the mid-Atlantic United States.

Social cohesion can influence health. It is higher among rural versus urban residents, but the burden of chronic disease is higher in rural communities. We examined the role of social cohesion in explaining rural/urban differences in healthcare access and health status. Rural (n = 1080) and urban (n = 1846) adults (ages 50+) from seven mid-Atlantic U.S. states completed an online, cross-sectional survey on social cohesion and health. We conducted bivariate and multivariable analyses to evaluate the relationships of rurality and social cohesion with healthcare access and health status. Rural participants had higher social cohesion scores than did urban participants (rural: mean = 61.7, standard error[SE] = 0.40; urban: mean = 60.6, SE = 0.35; adjusted beta = 1.45, SE = 0.54, p < .01). Higher social cohesion was associated with greater healthcare access: last-year check-up: adjusted odds ratio[aOR] = 1.25, 95% confidence interval[CI] = 1.17-1.33; having a personal provider: aOR = 1.11, 95% CI = 1.03-1.18; and being up-to-date with CRC screening: aOR = 1.17, 95% CI = 1.10-1.25. In addition, higher social cohesion was associated with improved health status: higher mental health scores (adjusted beta = 1.03, SE = 0.15, p < .001) and lower body mass index (BMI; beta = -0.26, SE = 0.10, p = .01). Compared to urban participants, rural participants were less likely to have a personal provider, had lower physical and mental health scores, and had higher BMI. Paradoxically, rural residents had higher social cohesion but generally poorer health outcomes than did urban residents, even though higher social cohesion is associated with better health. These findings have implications for research and policy to promote social cohesion and health, particularly for health promotion interventions to reduce disparities experienced by rural residents.

Assessing the use of constructs from the consolidated framework for implementation research in U.S. rural cancer screening promotion programs: a systematic search and scoping review.

BACKGROUND: Cancer screening is suboptimal in rural areas, and interventions are needed to improve uptake. The Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR) is a widely-used implementation science framework to optimize planning and delivery of evidence-based interventions, which may be particularly useful for screening promotion in rural areas. We examined the discussion of CFIR-defined domains and constructs in programs to improve cancer screening in rural areas. METHODS: We conducted a systematic search of research databases (e.g., Medline, CINAHL) to identify studies (published through November 2022) of cancer screening promotion programs delivered in rural areas in the United States. We identified 166 records, and 15 studies were included. Next, two reviewers used a standardized abstraction tool to conduct a critical scoping review of CFIR constructs in rural cancer screening promotion programs. RESULTS: Each study reported at least some CFIR domains and constructs, but studies varied in how they were reported. Broadly, constructs from the domains of Process, Intervention, and Outer setting were commonly reported, but constructs from the domains of Inner setting and Individuals were less commonly reported. The most common constructs were planning (100% of studies reporting), followed by adaptability, cosmopolitanism, and reflecting and evaluating (86.7% for each). No studies reported tension for change, self-efficacy, or opinion leader. CONCLUSIONS: Leveraging CFIR in the planning and delivery of cancer screening promotion programs in rural areas can improve program implementation. Additional studies are needed to evaluate the impact of underutilized CFIR domains, i.e., Inner setting and Individuals, on cancer screening programs.

Impact of Brief Quality Improvement Coaching on Adolescent HPV Vaccination Coverage: A Pragmatic Cluster Randomized Trial.

BACKGROUND: Health departments in the United States routinely conduct quality improvement (QI) coaching to help primary care providers optimize vaccine delivery. In a prior trial focusing on multiple adolescent vaccines, this light-touch intervention yielded only short-term improvements in HPV vaccination. We sought to evaluate the impact of an enhanced, HPV vaccine-specific QI coaching intervention when delivered in person or virtually. METHODS: We partnered with health departments in three states to conduct a pragmatic cluster randomized trial in 2015 to 2016. We randomized 224 primary care clinics to receive no intervention (control), in-person coaching, or virtual coaching. Health department staff delivered the brief (45-60 minute) coaching interventions, including HPV vaccine-specific training with assessment and feedback on clinics' vaccination coverage (i.e., proportion of patients vaccinated). States' immunization information systems provided data to assess coverage change for HPV vaccine initiation (≥1 doses) at 12-month follow-up, among patients ages 11 to 12 (primary outcome) and 13 to 17 (secondary outcome) at baseline. RESULTS: Clinics served 312,227 patients ages 11 to 17. For ages 11 to 12, coverage change for HPV vaccine initiation was higher in the in-person and virtual coaching arms than in the control arm at 12-month follow-up (1.2% and 0.7% point difference, both P < 0.05). For ages 13 to 17, coverage change was higher for virtual coaching than control (1.4% point difference, P < 0.001), but in-person coaching did not yield an intervention effect. CONCLUSIONS: Our brief QI coaching intervention produced small long-term improvements in HPV vaccination. IMPACT: Health departments may benefit from targeting QI coaching to specific vaccines, like HPV vaccine, that need them most.

Leveraging community engagement to increase the health literacy of youth in rural Pennsylvania: The ACHIEVE program.

PURPOSE: Limited health literacy is prevalent within rural populations and associated with poor health outcomes. This study examined a school-based, community-engaged program called ACHIEVE (Advancing Community Health Innovation through Education, Vision, and Empowerment) for preliminary efficacy in improving knowledge and self-efficacy related to health literacy among youth in rural Huntingdon County, Pennsylvania. METHODS: ACHIEVE was designed using an iterative process that utilized validated sources, educational standards, and community engagement. Five novel health literacy modules were piloted by the program in Huntingdon Area High School and delivered to ∼269 students during the 2019-2020 and 2020-2021 school years. To determine the impact of the program, we assessed participants' change in health knowledge and self-efficacy using pre- and post-tests for each module. Responses were collected via anonymous surveys and analyzed using unequal variance t-tests and chi-square tests. FINDINGS: The overall mean difference between pre- and post-tests ranged from 0.07 to 0.67, with a significant increase in participants' assessment scores following 4 out of the 5 program modules (P < .05). Across the 5 modules, both knowledge and self-efficacy domains displayed a significant improvement from pre- to post-test (P < .001). CONCLUSION: Our findings suggest that community partnerships in rural communities can be used to create effective community health interventions, such as our health literacy program, which significantly increased high school students' knowledge and self-efficacy.

Improving cervical cancer screening rates: a scoping review of resources and interventions.

INTRODUCTION: Cervical cancer mortality can be prevented through early detection with screening methods such as Pap and high-risk human papillomavirus (hrHPV) tests; however, only 81% of women aged 21-65 are up-to-date on screening. Many interventions to increase cervical cancer screening have been implemented, but there is limited understanding about which intervention components are most successful. METHODS: We conducted a scoping review of existing literature and available resources for cervical cancer screening interventions to identify gaps in the research. We used t tests and correlations to identify associations among intervention components and effect sizes. RESULTS: Out of nine studies, the mean overall effect size for interventions was 11.3% increase in Pap testing for cervical cancer screening (range = - 4-24%). Interventions that included community health workers or one-on-one interaction had the biggest effect size (p < 0.05). No associations with effect size were noted for literacy level, number of intervention components, or targeting by race/ethnicity. CONCLUSIONS: Future interventions may include educational sessions with community health workers or one-on-one patient interaction to improve cervical cancer screening. Further research is needed to establish effect sizes for large-scale interventions and hrHPV screening interventions.

Large variations in hospital pricing for standard procedures revealed.

OBJECTIVE: The CMS mandated hospital price transparency reporting on January 1, 2021 aiming to empower patients, enhance market competition, and curtail healthcare costs in the US. We aimed to characterize variability in hospital pricing reported by 1982 hospitals on six standard procedures (including abdominal ultrasound, diagnostic colonoscopy, kidney function blood test panel, knee arthroscopic cartilage removal, magnetic resonance imaging scan of brain, and pelvis computed tomography scan with contrast), with a particular focus on variations in pricing by insurance plan type. RESULTS: We found substantial heterogeneity across insurance plan types. The minimum number of prices reported was 18,679 for knee arthroscopic cartilage removal (reported by 908 hospitals, average = 21 prices/hospital), while the maximum number of prices reported was 44,921 for abdominal ultrasound (reported by 1861 hospitals, average = 24 prices/hospital). In general, reported hospital pricing was highest for the list price, followed by cash price and prices negotiated with commercial insurance plans. Government insurance, including Medicare, Medicaid and Veterans/Tricare plans, had much lower prices. However, prices were very heterogeneous with substantial overlaps between pricing for all plan types. The coefficients of variation for all procedures exceeded 100%, ranging from 106% for knee arthroscopic cartilage removal to 397% for kidney function blood test panel.

Utilization of Mammography During the Last Year of Life Among Older Breast Cancer Survivors.

Background: Mammography is generally recommended for breast cancer survivors. However, discussion is ongoing about stopping surveillance mammography when life expectancy is <5-10 years as the benefit of screening might be diminished toward the end of life. The utilization pattern of mammography in the last year of life among this population has not been well studied. Methods: We identified 58,736 females diagnosed with breast cancer between January 2002 and December 2015, who died at the age of at least 67, from the SEER-Medicare database. We examined the utilization patterns of mammography during their last year of life and investigated factors associated with the use of mammography at the end of life using a multivariable logistic regression model. Results: Overall, 28.5% of the patients received mammography during the last year of life. Multivariable logistic regression showed that older age (OR = 0.31, 95% CI = 0.29-0.34, p < 0.001 for 95 vs. 85 years old), more advanced cancer stage (OR = 0.22, 95% CI = 0.20-0.24 p < 0.001 for distant vs. localized disease), and higher comorbidity score (OR = 0.92, 95% CI = 0.91-0.93, p < 0.001 for every 1-point increase) were associated with less mammography use. Age was nonlinearly associated with mammography use, with a steady proportion of patients receiving a mammography until approximately age 80 and then a sharp decrease thereafter. Conclusion: This population-based study found that a sizable proportion of older breast cancer survivors received mammography during the last year of life.

Enduring Cancer Disparities by Persistent Poverty, Rurality, and Race: 1990-1992 to 2014-2018.

BACKGROUND: Most persistent poverty counties are rural and contain high concentrations of racial minorities. Cancer mortality across persistent poverty, rurality, and race is understudied. METHODS: We gathered data on race and cancer deaths (all sites, lung and bronchus, colorectal, liver and intrahepatic bile duct, oropharyngeal, breast and cervical [females], and prostate [males]) from the National Death Index (1990-1992; 2014-2018). We linked these data to county characteristics: 1) persistent poverty or not; and 2) rural or urban. We calculated absolute (range difference [RD]) and relative (range ratio [RR]) disparities for each cancer mortality outcome across persistent poverty, rurality, race, and time. RESULTS: The 1990-1992 RD for all sites combined indicated persistent poverty counties had 12.73 (95% confidence interval [CI] = 11.37 to 14.09) excess deaths per 100 000 people per year compared with nonpersistent poverty counties; the 2014-2018 RD was 10.99 (95% CI = 10.22 to 11.77). Similarly, the 1990-1992 RR for all sites indicated mortality rates in persistent poverty counties were 1.06 (95% CI = 1.05 to 1.07) times as high as nonpersistent poverty counties; the 2014-2018 RR was 1.07 (95% CI = 1.07 to 1.08). Between 1990-1992 and 2014-2018, absolute and relative disparities by persistent poverty widened for colorectal and breast cancers; however, for remaining outcomes, trends in disparities were stable or mixed. The highest mortality rates were observed among African American or Black residents of rural, persistent poverty counties for all sites, colorectal, oropharyngeal, breast, cervical, and prostate cancers. CONCLUSIONS: Mortality disparities by persistent poverty endured over time for most cancer outcomes, particularly for racial minorities in rural, persistent poverty counties. Multisector interventions are needed to improve cancer outcomes.

Multilevel Associations with Cancer Screening Among Women in Rural, Segregated Communities Within the Northeastern USA: a Mixed-Methods Study.

We recruited women (primarily non-Hispanic White) from 14 rural, segregated counties in a Northeastern US state for an explanatory sequential study: 100 women (ages 50-65 years) completed a survey, and 16 women participated in focus groups. We sought to identify personal (e.g., healthcare mistrust) and environmental (e.g., travel time to healthcare providers) factors related to colorectal and cervical cancer screening. Quantitatively, 89% of participants were up-to-date for cervical screening, and 65% for colorectal screening. Factors interacted such that compounding barriers were associated with lower odds of screening (e.g., insurance status and healthcare mistrust: interaction p = .02 for cervical; interaction p = .05 for colorectal). Qualitatively, three themes emerged regarding barriers to screening: privacy concerns, logistical barriers, and lack of trust in adequacy of healthcare services. While cancer screening was common in rural, segregated counties, women who reported both environmental and personal barriers to screening had lower uptake. Future interventions to promote screening can target these barriers.