Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34605915›Full record

ArticleJAMA network open2021

Differences in Breast and Colorectal Cancer Screening Adherence Among Women Residing in Urban and Rural Communities in the United States.

Sanjay Shete, Yangyang Deng, Jackilen Shannon, Babalola Faseru, Deirdre Middleton, Ronaldo Iachan, Brittany Bernardo, Rajesh Balkrishnan, Sunny Jung Kim, Bin Huang and 10 more

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in JAMA network open, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 51 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
51citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
4.4field-weighted citation impact, top 4% of its field
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

51 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 70 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Comparative effectiveness of two interventions to increase colorectal cancer screening among females living in the rural Midwest.The Journal of rural health : official journal of the American Rural Health Association and the National Rural Health Care Association · 2024
    Trial
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Barriers and interventions to improve the uptake of cancer risk management strategies in hereditary cancer syndromes: a narrative review.International journal of gynecological cancer : official journal of the International Gynecological Cancer Society · 2026
    Review
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Associations between Insurance Status, Financial Hardship, and Rurality on Receipt of Guideline-Concordant Mammography.Cancer epidemiology, biomarkers & prevention : a publication of the American Association for Cancer Research, cosponsored by the American Society of Preventive Oncology · 2025
    Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. Article
  20. Article
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

20 authors at 13 institutions in 1 country.

Sanjay SheteDivision of Cancer Prevention, Department of Biostatistics, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston.
Yangyang DengICF, Rockville, Maryland.
Jackilen ShannonOregon Health & Sciences University, Portland State University School of Public Health, Portland.
Babalola FaseruDepartment of Population Health, University of Kansas Medical Center, Kansas City.
Deirdre MiddletonICF, Rockville, Maryland.
Ronaldo IachanICF, Rockville, Maryland.
Brittany BernardoDivision of Population Sciences, The Ohio State University Comprehensive Cancer Center, Columbus.
Rajesh BalkrishnanUniversity of Virginia School of Medicine, Charlottesville.
Sunny Jung KimDepartment of Health Behavior and Policy, Virginia Commonwealth University School of Medicine, Richmond.
Bin HuangDepartment of Cancer Biostatistics, University of Kentucky, Lexington.
Morgan M MillarUniversity of Utah School of Medicine, Salt Lake City.
Bernard FuemmlerDepartment of Health Behavior and Policy, Virginia Commonwealth University School of Medicine, Richmond.
Jakob D JensenUniversity of Utah College of Humanities, Salt Lake City.
Jason A MendozaPublic Health Sciences Division, Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, Seattle, Washington.
Jinxiang HuDepartment of Biostatistics and Data Science, University of Kansas Medical Center, Kansas City.
DeAnn LazovichUniversity of Minnesota School of Public Health, Minneapolis.
Linda RobertsonUPMC Hillman Cancer Center, Department of Medicine, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.
Wendy Demark-WahnefriedThe University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham.
Electra D PaskettDivision of Cancer Prevention and Control, Department of Internal Medicine, The Ohio State University Comprehensive Cancer Center, College of Medicine, Columbus.
Rural Workgroup of the Population Health Assessment in Cancer Center Catchment Areas Initiative
ICF International (United States) · USThe Ohio State University · USUniversity of Kansas Medical Center · USUniversity of Utah · USVirginia Commonwealth University · USPortland State University · USThe University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center · USUniversity of Alabama at Birmingham · USUniversity of Kentucky · USUniversity of Minnesota · USUniversity of Virginia · USUniversity of Washington · USUPMC Hillman Cancer Center · US

Funding

Translational Bioimaging Core Shared ResourceP30CA015704 · NCI · FRED HUTCHINSON CANCER RESEARCH CENTER · PI Eric Collisson · 1985 to 2026
$296.4M
VECTOR CORE FACILITYP30CA047904 · NCI · UNIVERSITY OF PITTSBURGH AT PITTSBURGH · PI JOHN C. BYRD · 1988 to 2026
$158.0M
Translational Therapeutics Research Program (TT)P30CA016058 · NCI · OHIO STATE UNIVERSITY · PI Jennifer A. Woyach · 1985 to 2026
$132.3M
Transgenic & Gene-Targeting Shared ResourceP30CA168524 · NCI · UNIVERSITY OF KANSAS MEDICAL CENTER · PI ROY A. JENSEN · 2012 to 2026
$40.1M
University of Kentucky Markey Cancer Center Support Grant ECIA SupplementP30CA177558 · NCI · UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY · PI Bernard Mark Evers · 2013 to 2026
$38.3M
Using Integrated Omics to Identify Dysfunctional Genetic Mechanisms Influencing Schizophrenia and Sleep DisturbancesP20GM130423 · NIGMS · UNIVERSITY OF KANSAS MEDICAL CENTER · PI Kalyani Pyaram, Steven Allan Soper · 2019 to 2026
$21.5M
Research Supplement to Promote Diversity in Health Related ResearchUL1TR002649 · NCATS · VIRGINIA COMMONWEALTH UNIVERSITY · PI MOELLER, FREDERICK GERARD · 2018 to 2022
$19.1M
NCATS NIH HHS UL1 TR002649NCI NIH HHS P30 CA015704NCI NIH HHS P30 CA016058NCI NIH HHS P30 CA047904NCI NIH HHS P30 CA168524NCI NIH HHS P30 CA177558NIGMS NIH HHS P20 GM130423
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Importance: Screening for breast and colorectal cancer has resulted in reductions in mortality; however, questions remain regarding how these interventions are being diffused to all segments of the population. If an intervention is less amenable to diffusion, it could be associated with disparities in mortality rates, especially in rural vs urban areas. Objectives: To compare the prevalence of breast and colorectal cancer screening adherence and to identify factors associated with screening adherence among women residing in rural vs urban areas in the United States. Design, Setting, and Participants: This population-based cross-sectional study of women aged 50 to 75 years in 11 states was conducted from 2017 to 2020. Main Outcomes and Measures: Adherence to cancer screening based on the US Preventative Services Task Force guidelines. For breast cancer screening, women who had mammograms in the past 2 years were considered adherent. For colorectal cancer screening, women who had (1) a stool test in the past year, (2) a colonoscopy in the past 10 years, or (3) a sigmoidoscopy in the past 5 years were considered adherent. Rural status was coded using Rural Urban Continuum Codes, and other variables were assessed to identify factors associated with screening. Results: The overall sample of 2897 women included 1090 (38.4%) rural residents; 2393 (83.5%) non-Hispanic White women; 263 (9.2%) non-Hispanic Black women; 68 (2.4%) Hispanic women; 1629 women (56.2%) aged 50 to 64 years; and 712 women (24.8%) with a high school education or less. Women residing in urban areas were significantly more likely to be adherent to colorectal cancer screening compared with women residing in rural areas (1429 [82%] vs 848 [78%]; P = .01), whereas the groups were equally likely to be adherent to breast cancer screening (1347 [81%] vs 830 [81%]; P = .78). Multivariable mixed-effects logistic regression analyses confirmed that rural residence was associated with lower odds of being adherent to colorectal cancer screening (odds ratio [OR], 0.81; 95% CI, 0.66-0.99, P = .047). Non-Hispanic Black race was associated with adherence to breast cancer screening guidelines (OR, 2.85; 95% CI, 1.78-4.56; P < .001) but not colorectal cancer screening guidelines. Conclusions and Relevance: In this cross-sectional study, women residing in rural areas were less likely to be adherent to colorectal cancer screening guidelines but were similarly adherent to breast cancer screening. This suggests that colorectal cancer screening, a more recent intervention, may not be as available in rural areas as breast cancer screening, ie, colorectal screening has lower amenability.

Indexed as

AgedBreast NeoplasmsColonoscopyColorectal NeoplasmsCross-Sectional StudiesEarly Detection of CancerFemaleHumansMammographyMiddle AgedRural PopulationUnited StatesUrban Population

Identifiers

PMID34605915
PMCPMC8491105
OpenAlexW3204270378

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.