The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Patterns and Trends in Cancer Screening in the United States
Open accessAbstract
INTRODUCTION: We examined the prevalence of cancer screening reported in 2015 among US adults, adjusted for important sociodemographic and access-to-care variables. By using data from the National Health Interview Survey (NHIS) for 2000 through 2015, we examined trends in prevalence of cancer screening that adhered to US Preventive Services Task Force screening recommendations in order to monitor screening progress among traditionally underserved population subgroups. METHODS: We analyzed NHIS data from surveys from 2000 through 2015 to estimate prevalence and trends in use of recommended screening tests for breast, cervical, colorectal, and prostate cancers. We used logistic regression and report predictive margins for population subgroups adjusted for various socioeconomic and demographic variables. RESULTS: Colorectal cancer screening was the only test that increased during the study period. We found disparities in prevalence of test use among subgroups for all tests examined. Factors that reduced the use of screening tests included no contact with a doctor in the past year, no usual source of health care, and no insurance coverage. CONCLUSION: Understanding use of cancer screening tests among different population subgroups is vital for planning public health interventions with potential to increase screening uptake and reduce disparities in cancer morbidity and mortality. Overarching goals of Healthy People 2020 are to "achieve health equity, eliminate disparities, and improve the health of all groups." Adjusted findings for 2015, compared with previous years, show persistent screening disparities, particularly among the uninsured, and progress for colorectal cancer screening only.
Overview
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
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.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cited by
Qiu, H., Cao, S., & Xu, R. (2021) · Cancer Communications · doi:10.1002/cac2.12197 · Cited by 1,015
Fontham, E. T. H., Wolf, A. M. D., Church, T. R., Etzioni, R., Flowers, C. R., Herzig, A., Guerra, C. E., Oeffinger, K. C., Shih, Y. T., Walter, L. C., et al. (2020) · CA A Cancer Journal for Clinicians · doi:10.3322/caac.21628 · Cited by 968
Feasibility of blood testing combined with PET-CT to screen for cancer and guide intervention
Lennon, A. M., Buchanan, A. H., Kinde, I., Warren, A., Honushefsky, A., Cohain, A. T., Ledbetter, D. H., Sanfilippo, F., Sheridan, K., Rosica, D., et al. (2020) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.abb9601 · Cited by 657
Global trends in incidence, death, burden and risk factors of early-onset cancer from 1990 to 2019
Zhao, J., Xu, L., Sun, J., Song, M., Wang, L., Yuan, S., Zhu, Y., Wan, Z., Larsson, S., Tsilidis, K., et al. (2023) · BMJ Oncology · doi:10.1136/bmjonc-2023-000049 · Cited by 306
Association of major adverse financial events and later-stage cancer diagnosis in the United States.
Warren, J. L., Mariotto, A. B., Stevens, J., Davidoff, A. J., Shankaran, V., Ward, K. C., Wu, X.-C., Schwartz, S. M., Penberthy, L., & Yabroff, K. R. (2024) · Journal of Clinical Oncology · doi:10.1200/jco.23.01067 · Cited by 7
Metadata
- Authors
- Hall, I. J., Tangka, F. K. L., Sabatino, S. A., Thompson, T. D., Graubard, B. I., & Breen, N.
- Venue
- Preventing Chronic Disease
- Published
- 2018-07-26
- Volume
- 15
- Pages
- E97-E97
- ISSN
- 1545-1151 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W3022093651
- Cited by
- 279
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 9.35
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- diamond
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
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Patterns and Trends in Cancer Screening in the United States. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.5888/pcd15.170465
- The paper
- Hall, I. J., Tangka, F. K. L., Sabatino, S. A., Thompson, T. D., Graubard, B. I., & Breen, N. (2018). Patterns and Trends in Cancer Screening in the United States. Preventing Chronic Disease. https://doi.org/10.5888/pcd15.170465
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.