Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29108988›Full record

ArticleWomen's health issues : official publication of the Jacobs Institute of Women's Health

Urban/Rural Differences in Breast and Cervical Cancer Incidence: The Mediating Roles of Socioeconomic Status and Provider Density.

Jennifer L Moss, Benmei Liu, Eric J Feuer

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Women's health issues : official publication of the Jacobs Institute of Women's Health. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 61 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
61citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

61 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. The Influence of Residential Segregation, Urbanicity, and Population Density on Hepatocellular Carcinoma Incidence among a Low Socioeconomic Population.Cancer epidemiology, biomarkers & prevention : a publication of the American Association for Cancer Research, cosponsored by the American Society of Preventive Oncology · 2025
    Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article

1 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Jennifer L MossSurveillance Research Program, Division of Cancer Control and Population Sciences, National Cancer Institute, Bethesda, Maryland. Electronic address: Jennifer.moss@nih.gov.
Benmei LiuStatistical Research and Applications Branch, Surveillance Research Program, Division of Cancer Control and Population Sciences, National Cancer Institute, Bethesda, Maryland.
Eric J FeuerStatistical Research and Applications Branch, Surveillance Research Program, Division of Cancer Control and Population Sciences, National Cancer Institute, Bethesda, Maryland.

Funding

Intramural NIH HHS Z99 CA999999
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundBreast and cervical cancer incidence vary by urbanicity, and several ecological factors could contribute to these patterns. In particular, cancer screening or other sociodemographic and health care system variables could explain geographic disparities in cancer incidence.

methodsGovernmental and research sources provided data on 612 counties in the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results program for rural-urban continuum code, socioeconomic status (SES) quintile, percent non-Hispanic White residents, density of primary care physicians, cancer screening, and breast and cervical cancer incidence rates (2009-2013). Ecological mediation analyses used weighted least squares regression to examine whether candidate mediators explained the relationship between urbanicity and cancer incidence.

resultsAs urbanicity increased, so did breast cancer incidence (βˆ = 0.23; p < .001). SES quintile and density of primary care physicians mediated this relationship, whereas percent non-Hispanic White suppressed it (all p < .05); county-level mammography levels did not contribute to the relationship. After controlling for these variables, urbanicity and breast cancer incidence were no longer associated (βˆ = 0.11; p > .05). In contrast, as urbanicity increased, cervical cancer incidence decreased (βˆ = -0.33; p < .001). SES quintile and density of primary care physicians mediated this relationship (both p < .05); percent non-Hispanic White and Pap screening levels did not contribute to the relationship. After controlling for these variables, the relationship between urbanicity and cervical cancer incidence remained significant (βˆ = -0.13; p < .05).

conclusionsCounty-level SES and density of primary care physicians explained the relationships between urbanicity and breast and cervical cancer incidence. Improving these factors in more rural counties could ameliorate geographic disparities in breast and cervical cancer incidence.

Indexed as

Healthcare DisparitiesHealth Services AccessibilityResidence CharacteristicsRural PopulationUrban PopulationAdultAgedBreast NeoplasmsEarly Detection of CancerFemaleHealth Status DisparitiesHumansIncidenceMammographyMiddle AgedRural Health

Identifiers

PMID29108988
PMCPMC5694385

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.