ArticlePreventing chronic disease2026
Rural-Urban and Appalachian Disparities in Geographic Access to Colonoscopy and Screening Prevalence Across the Contiguous US.
Article in Preventing chronic disease, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: Colorectal cancer (CRC) incidence and mortality rates are disproportionately high in rural and Appalachian communities, where geographic barriers and specialist shortages may limit access to colonoscopy. Methods: We conducted a national cross-sectional geospatial analysis of all contiguous US census tracts. We identified colonoscopy providers by using National Provider Identifier specialty designations and colonoscopy procedure indicators. Geographic access was quantified by using a 4-band enhanced 2-step floating catchment area (E2SFCA) method. We used small-area estimation for colonoscopy from Centers for Disease Control and Prevention PLACES to determine CRC screening prevalence. We compared E2SFCA distributions across rural-urban and Appalachian-non-Appalachian using the Kruskal-Wallis test with Benjamini-Hochberg-adjusted Dunn post hoc pairwise comparisons; we modeled screening prevalence using a mixed-effects beta regression analysis. Results: Urban census tracts tended to rely on delivery of colonoscopies by gastroenterologists and ambulatory surgical centers, whereas rural census tracts relied more on general surgeons, particularly for screening (vs diagnostic/therapeutic colonoscopy). Geographic access to colonoscopy providers varied little across census tracts, with only modest differences by rurality and Appalachian designation. In mixed-effects beta regression, colonoscopy access was not significantly associated with screening prevalence while both rural and Appalachian census tracts had slightly lower screening prevalence compared with their counterparts (rural vs urban: Exp(β) = 0.994; P = .02; Appalachian vs non-Appalachian: Exp(β) = 0.976; P < .001). Conclusion: Better geographic access does not translate into meaningfully higher screening prevalence. Structural, socioeconomic, and referral-related barriers likely attenuate the effect of geographic proximity on screening behavior. Further integration of claims-based utilization and patient-level factors is needed to clarify pathways between access and CRC screening.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What 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.