IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jijerp/v15y2018i9p1961-d168555.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

What Explains Education Disparities in Screening Mammography in the United States? A Comparison with The Netherlands

Author

Listed:
  • Hale Koç

    (Tinbergen Institute, 3062 PA Rotterdam, The Netherlands
    Department of Applied Economics, Erasmus School of Economics, 3062 PA Rotterdam, The Netherlands)

  • Owen O’Donnell

    (Tinbergen Institute, 3062 PA Rotterdam, The Netherlands
    Department of Applied Economics, Erasmus School of Economics, 3062 PA Rotterdam, The Netherlands
    Department of Balkan, Slavic and Oriental Studies, University of Macedonia, 546 36 Thessaloniki, Greece)

  • Tom Van Ourti

    (Tinbergen Institute, 3062 PA Rotterdam, The Netherlands
    Department of Applied Economics, Erasmus School of Economics, 3062 PA Rotterdam, The Netherlands)

Abstract

Background: In the U.S., less educated women are substantially less likely to receive screening mammography. It is not clear whether this is due to differences in access to screening or in perceptions of breast cancer risks and the effectiveness of screening. We weigh the plausibility of these two explanations by examining how the dependence of mammography on education changes after conditioning on indicators of access and perceptions. We also compare estimates for the U.S. with those for the Netherlands where there is universal access to a publicly financed screening program. Method: Cross-sectional and cross-country comparable individual level data from the American Life Panel ( n = 646) and the Netherlands Longitudinal Internet Studies for the Social Sciences ( n = 1398) were used to estimate and explain education disparities in screening mammograms given to American and Dutch women aged 40+. The education gradient was estimated using logit models. Controls were sequentially added to detect whether disparities were explained by differences in access or perceptions of risks and effectiveness. Results: In the United States, high school graduates were 11.5 percentage points (95% CI: 1–22 percentage points) less likely than college graduates to receive a screening mammogram in the previous two years. This education gradient was largely explained by differences in income, insurance coverage and receipt of medical advice. It was not explained by educational differences in the perceived risk of breast cancer and the effectiveness of mammography. There were no education disparities in receipt of mammography among Dutch women within the 50–75 age range covered by the national screening program. Conclusion: In the absence of a universal screening program in the U.S., determinants of access—income, insurance coverage and receipt of medical advice—appear to drive the education disparities in screening mammography.

Suggested Citation

  • Hale Koç & Owen O’Donnell & Tom Van Ourti, 2018. "What Explains Education Disparities in Screening Mammography in the United States? A Comparison with The Netherlands," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 15(9), pages 1-13, September.
  • Handle: RePEc:gam:jijerp:v:15:y:2018:i:9:p:1961-:d:168555
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/15/9/1961/pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/15/9/1961/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. repec:dau:papers:123456789/7402 is not listed on IDEAS
    2. Gabriel Picone & Frank Sloan & Donald Taylor, 2004. "Effects of Risk and Time Preference and Expected Longevity on Demand for Medical Tests," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 28(1), pages 39-53, January.
    3. Florence Jusot & Zeynep Or & Nicolas Sirven, 2012. "Variations in preventive care utilisation in Europe," Post-Print hal-01593796, HAL.
    4. Lange, Fabian, 2011. "The role of education in complex health decisions: Evidence from cancer screening," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 30(1), pages 43-54, January.
    5. Walsh, Brendan & Silles, Mary & O'Neill, Ciarán, 2011. "The importance of socio-economic variables in cancer screening participation: A comparison between population-based and opportunistic screening in the EU-15," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 101(3), pages 269-276, August.
    6. Urban, N. & Anderson, G.L. & Peacock, S., 1994. "Mammography screening: How important is cost as a barrier to use?," American Journal of Public Health, American Public Health Association, vol. 84(1), pages 50-55.
    7. Selvin, E. & Brett, K.M., 2003. "Breast and cervical cancer screening: Sociodemographic predictors among White, Black, and Hispanic women," American Journal of Public Health, American Public Health Association, vol. 93(4), pages 618-623.
    8. Katherine Carman & Peter Kooreman, 2014. "Probability perceptions and preventive health care," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 49(1), pages 43-71, August.
    9. Lairson, David R. & Chan, Wenyaw & Newmark, Georgina R., 2005. "Determinants of the demand for breast cancer screening among women veterans in the United States," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 61(7), pages 1608-1617, October.
    10. Heidi D Nelson & Roshanthi Weerasinghe & Lian Wang & Gary Grunkemeier, 2015. "Mammography Screening in a Large Health System Following the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force Recommendations and the Affordable Care Act," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 10(6), pages 1-11, June.
    11. O'Malley, M.S. & Earp, J.A.L. & Hawley, S.T. & Schell, M.J. & Mathews, H.F. & Mitchell, J., 2001. "The association of race/ethnicity, socioeconomic status, and physician recommendation for mammography: Who gets the message about breast cancer screening?," American Journal of Public Health, American Public Health Association, vol. 91(1), pages 49-54.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Mohammed Khaled Al-Hanawi & Rubayyat Hashmi & Sarh Almubark & Ameerah M. N. Qattan & Mohammad Habibullah Pulok, 2020. "Socioeconomic Inequalities in Uptake of Breast Cancer Screening among Saudi Women: A Cross-Sectional Analysis of a National Survey," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 17(6), pages 1-13, March.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Missinne, Sarah & Bracke, Piet, 2015. "A cross-national comparative study on the influence of individual life course factors on mammography screening," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 119(6), pages 709-719.
    2. Sarah Hoeck & Johan Van der Heyden & Joanna Geerts & Guido Van Hal, 2013. "Preventive Care Use among the Belgian Elderly Population: Does Socio-Economic Status Matter?," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 11(1), pages 1-18, December.
    3. Goldzahl, Léontine, 2017. "Contributions of risk preference, time orientation and perceptions to breast cancer screening regularity," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 185(C), pages 147-157.
    4. Spitzer, Sonja & Shaikh, Mujaheed, 2022. "Health misperception and healthcare utilisation among older Europeans," The Journal of the Economics of Ageing, Elsevier, vol. 22(C).
    5. BOUCKAERT, Nicolas & SCHOKKAERT, Erik, 2013. "Differing types of medical prevention appeal to different individuals," LIDAM Discussion Papers CORE 2013038, Université catholique de Louvain, Center for Operations Research and Econometrics (CORE).
    6. Elyès Jouini & Clotilde Napp, 2018. "The Impact of Health-Related Emotions on Belief Formation and Behavior," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 84(3), pages 405-427, May.
    7. Barbara Willems & Piet Bracke, 2018. "The education gradient in cancer screening participation: a consistent phenomenon across Europe?," International Journal of Public Health, Springer;Swiss School of Public Health (SSPH+), vol. 63(1), pages 93-103, January.
    8. Willems, Barbara & Bracke, Piet, 2018. "Participants, Physicians or Programmes: Participants’ educational level and initiative in cancer screening," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 122(4), pages 422-430.
    9. Mary Riddel & David Hales, 2018. "Predicting Cancer‐Prevention Behavior: Disentangling the Effects of Risk Aversion and Risk Perceptions," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 38(10), pages 2161-2177, October.
    10. Roman Hoffmann & Sebastian Uljas Lutz, 2019. "The health knowledge mechanism: evidence on the link between education and health lifestyle in the Philippines," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 20(1), pages 27-43, February.
    11. Ciro Avitabile & Tullio Jappelli & Mario Padula, 2008. "Screening Tests, Information, and the Health-Education Gradient," CSEF Working Papers 187, Centre for Studies in Economics and Finance (CSEF), University of Naples, Italy, revised 28 Apr 2008.
    12. Chauvin Pauline & Tabo Augustin & Chopard Bertrand, 2020. "The Role of Optimism and Pessimism in the Substitution Between Primary and Secondary Health Prevention Efforts," The B.E. Journal of Economic Analysis & Policy, De Gruyter, vol. 20(1), pages 1-6, January.
    13. Carrieri, Vincenzo & Wuebker, Ansgar, 2013. "Assessing inequalities in preventive care use in Europe," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 113(3), pages 247-257.
    14. Coughlin, Steven S. & Leadbetter, Steven & Richards, Thomas & Sabatino, Susan A., 2008. "Contextual analysis of breast and cervical cancer screening and factors associated with health care access among United States women, 2002," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 66(2), pages 260-275, January.
    15. Sonja Spitzer & Mujaheed Shaikh, 2020. "Health Misperception and Healthcare Utilisation among Older Europeans," VID Working Papers 2001, Vienna Institute of Demography (VID) of the Austrian Academy of Sciences in Vienna.
    16. Franz Hackl & Martin Halla & Michael Hummer & Gerald J. Pruckner, 2015. "The Effectiveness of Health Screening," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 24(8), pages 913-935, August.
    17. Carrieri, V. & Wuebker, A., 2012. "Assessing inequalities in preventive care use in Europe: A special case of health-care inequalities?," Health, Econometrics and Data Group (HEDG) Working Papers 12/25, HEDG, c/o Department of Economics, University of York.
    18. Vincenzo Carrieri & Ansgar Wuebker, 2016. "Quasi-Experimental Evidence on the Effects of Health Information on Preventive Behaviour in Europe," Oxford Bulletin of Economics and Statistics, Department of Economics, University of Oxford, vol. 78(6), pages 765-791, December.
    19. repec:zbw:rwirep:0371 is not listed on IDEAS
    20. Vincenzo Carrieri & Ansgar Wübker, 2012. "Assessing Inequalities in Preventive Care Use in Europe," Ruhr Economic Papers 0371, Rheinisch-Westfälisches Institut für Wirtschaftsforschung, Ruhr-Universität Bochum, Universität Dortmund, Universität Duisburg-Essen.
    21. Lairson, David R. & Chan, Wenyaw & Newmark, Georgina R., 2005. "Determinants of the demand for breast cancer screening among women veterans in the United States," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 61(7), pages 1608-1617, October.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jijerp:v:15:y:2018:i:9:p:1961-:d:168555. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.