ArticleOchsner journal2016
Cancer Screening Rates in a Student-Run Free Clinic.
Article in Ochsner journal, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Student-Led Clinics in Aotearoa New Zealand: A Scoping Review with Stakeholder Consultation.Journal of multidisciplinary healthcare · 2021Article
- Addressing Breast Cancer Screening Disparities Among Uninsured and Insured Patients: A Student-Run Free Clinic Initiative.Journal of community health · 2020Article
- Preventative Cancer Screening Rates Among Uninsured Patients in Free Clinics: A Retrospective Cohort Study of Cancer Survivors and Non-cancer Survivors.Cancer control : journal of the Moffitt Cancer CenterArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundIn the United States and in New York State, individuals with no health insurance have consistently lower screening rates for breast and cervical cancer than those with health insurance and are also more likely to be diagnosed with advanced stages of cancer. Our objective was to compare the cancer screening rates among patients at a free student-run clinic to state and national data. To our knowledge, ours is the first study examining breast and cervical screening rates and their relation to insurance status, income level, education level, race, and marital status in a suburban free student-run clinic.
methodsAs part of their intake from fall 2012 to spring 2013, patients at the Stony Brook Health Outreach and Medical Education Clinic in Stony Brook, NY, filled out a 26-item survey that included questions about race, income, education level, marital status, and cancer screening status. We compared the screening rates reported by our patients to published state and national rates.
resultsBreast and cervical cancer screening rates reported by 165 patients treated at our free student-run clinic were lower than the overall state and national averages. No significant associations between race, income, education level, or marital status and cancer screening rates were detected.
conclusionCancer screening rates at our free student-run clinic for the uninsured were lower than the overall state and national rates. These findings are consistent with previous reports of lower cancer preventive care utilization among the uninsured and suggest that insurance status has been a significant barrier to obtaining cancer screenings among our clinic population. Increasing cancer screening rates at student-run clinics may be a cost-effective secondary prevention activity that can decrease cancer mortality.
Indexed as
Identifiers
27046402PMC4795498What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.