CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 93Religion, Spirituality, and PsychologyHealth disparities and outcomesColorectal Cancer Screening and Detection

Roles of Religious Involvement and Social Support in the Risk of Colon Cancer among Blacks and Whites

Open access
Kinney, A. Y.·2003·American Journal of Epidemiology
DOI 10.1093/aje/kwg264
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

This population-based case-control study of Blacks and Whites in North Carolina (1996-2000) examined the relation between social ties, etiology of colon cancer, and stage of disease at diagnosis. Interviews were conducted with 637 cases and 1,043 controls. Information was collected on two dimensions of social ties, structural (network) dimensions and functional (emotional and tangible help) dimensions. Infrequent attendance at religious services (less than once per month) was associated with a regional/advanced stage of colon cancer at diagnosis in Whites (odds ratio (OR) = 1.67, 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.09, 2.57; p for trend = 0.02) but not in Blacks (OR = 1.21, 95% CI: 0.66, 2.21; p for trend = 0.80). Among Blacks, minimal emotional support was strongly associated with risk of colon cancer (OR = 4.62, 95% CI: 2.06, 10.35; p for trend < 0.001) and with both local (OR = 3.69, 95% CI: 1.08, 12.69; p for trend < 0.001) and advanced (OR = 5.10, 95% CI: 2.03, 12.82; p for trend < 0.01) disease. No associations between emotional support and risk of colon cancer or stage of disease were observed among Whites. These results suggest that certain characteristics of social ties are associated with both risk of and prognostic indicators for colon cancer.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1093/aje/kwg264

Cites

50 of 50 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Two (7%) of the 29 studies reported a significantly worse prognosis for those who are more R/S.

    “Of those, 16 (55%) found that those who are more R/S had a lower risk of developing cancer or a better prognosis, although two (7%) reported a significantly worse prognosis [467, 468].”

    From Religion, Spirituality, and Health: The Research and Clinical Implications (2012) · cites this paper as [467]

    The Results section (page unavailable) reports the opposite direction: limited religious involvement was associated with more advanced colon cancer at diagnosis in Whites, with no association observed in Blacks. The paper examines stage at diagnosis rather than prognosis and does not report that greater religious involvement significantly worsened prognosis. (LLM, conf=0.86)

    Checked by a reasoning model — may be wrong.

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 4

  1. Berkman L, Glass T. Social integration, social networks, social support, and health. In: Berkman L, Kawachi I, eds. Social epidemiology. New York, NY: Oxford University Press, 2000:137-73.
  2. Berkman LF. Social networks, host resistance, and mortality: a follow-up study of Alameda County residents. (Doctoral dissertation). Berkeley, CA: University of California, Berkeley, 1997.
  3. Emmons KM. Health behaviors in a social context. In: Berkman LF, Kawachi I, eds. Social epidemiology. New York, NY: Oxford University Press, 2000:242-66.
  4. Hartge P. Raising response rates: getting to yes. Epidemiology 1999;10:105-7.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Kinney, A. Y.
Affiliations
University of Utah (US)
Corresponding author
Kinney, A. Y.
ORCID
Kinney, A. Y.
Venue
American Journal of Epidemiology
Publisher
Oxford University Press (OUP)
Published
2003-12-01
Volume
158
Issue
11
Pages
1097-1107
ISSN
0002-9262 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1093/aje/kwg264
OpenAlex
W2143806009
Cited by
93
References
50
Citations by year
2023: 42 · 2021: 3 · 2020: 2 · 2019: 5 · 2018: 2 · 2017: 3 · 2016: 3 · 2015: 1 · 2014: 2 · 2013: 5 · 2012: 3
FWCI
2.51
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • American Journal of Epidemiology (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • NC Digital Online Collection of Knowledge and Scholarship (The University of North Carolina at Greensboro) (submittedVersion)
Funders
National Cancer Institute (R01CA066635, R01-CA66635, CA 57726, R25 CA 57726, K07CA82121, R25CA057726, K07CA082121)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Health › Religion, Spirituality, and Psychology
  • Social Sciences › Health › Health disparities and outcomes
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Oncology › Colorectal Cancer Screening and Detection
Keywords
colon cancer, religious involvement, social support, racial differences, emotional support, social networks, stage at diagnosis, cancer risk, black and white populations
MeSH terms
Aged, Black or African American, Colonic Neoplasms, Diet, Female, Humans, Male, Middle Aged, North Carolina, Population Surveillance, Prognosis, Religion, Risk Factors, Social Support, Confidence Intervals, Case-Control Studies, Black People, White People

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review