IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/aph/ajpbhl/20019181264-1272_5.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Colorectal cancer screening participation: Comparisons with mammography and prostate-specific antigen screening

Author

Listed:
  • Lemon, S.
  • Zapka, J.
  • Puleo, E.
  • Luckmann, R.
  • Chasan-Taber, L.

Abstract

Objectives. The relation of personal characteristics, health and lifestyle behaviors, and cancer screening practices to current colorectal cancer (CRC) screening was assessed and compared with those factors' relation to current mammography screening in women and prostate-specific antigen (PSA) screening in men. Methods. A cross-sectional random-digit-dialed telephone survey of 954 Massachusetts residents aged 50 and older was conducted. Results. The overall prevalence of current CRC screening was 55.3%. Logistic regression results indicated that family history of CRC (odds ratio [OR] = 1.98; 95% confidence interval [Cl] = 1.02; 3.86), receiving a regular medical checkup (OR = 3.07; 95% Cl = 2.00, 4.71), current screening by mammography in women and PSA in men (OR = 4.40; 95% Cl = 2.94, 6.58), and vitamin supplement use (OR = 1.87; 95% Cl = 1.27, 2.77) were significant predictors of CRC screening. Conclusions. Health and lifestyle behaviors were related to increased current CRC, mammography, and PSA screening. Personal factors independently related to CRC screening were not consistent with those related to mammography and PSA screening. This lack of consistency may reflect different stages of adoption of each type of screening by clinicians and the public.

Suggested Citation

  • Lemon, S. & Zapka, J. & Puleo, E. & Luckmann, R. & Chasan-Taber, L., 2001. "Colorectal cancer screening participation: Comparisons with mammography and prostate-specific antigen screening," American Journal of Public Health, American Public Health Association, vol. 91(8), pages 1264-1272.
    • Handle: RePEc:aph:ajpbhl:2001:91:8:1264-1272_5
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    To our knowledge, this item is not available for download. To find whether it is available, there are three options:
    1. Check below whether another version of this item is available online.
    2. Check on the provider's web page whether it is in fact available.
    3. Perform a search for a similarly titled item that would be available.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:aph:ajpbhl:2001:91:8:1264-1272_5. 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.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using 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: Christopher F Baum (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.apha.org .

    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.