Abstract
Purpose
Perceived discrimination has been associated with lower adherence to cancer screening guidelines. We examined whether perceived discrimination was associated with adherence to breast, cervical, colorectal, and prostate cancer screening guidelines in US Hispanic/Latino adults.
Methods
Data were obtained from the Hispanic Community Health Study/Study of Latinos Sociocultural Ancillary Study, including 5,313 Hispanic adults ages 18–74 from Bronx NY, Chicago IL, Miami FL, and San Diego CA who were within appropriate age ranges for specific screening tests were included in the analysis. Cancer screening behaviors were assessed via self-report. Perceived discrimination was measured using the Perceived Ethnic Discrimination Questionnaire. Confounder-adjusted multivariable polytomous logistic regression models assessed the association between perceived discrimination and adherence to cancer screening guidelines.
Results
Among women eligible for screening, 72.1% were adherent to cervical cancer screening guidelines and 71.3% were adherent to breast cancer screening guidelines. In participants aged 50–74, 24.6% of women and 27.0% of men were adherent to fecal occult blood test guidelines; 43.5% of women and 34.8% of men were adherent to colonscopy/sigmoidoscopy guidelines; 41.0% of men were adherent to prostate specific antigen screening guidelines. Health insurance coverage, rather than perceived ethnic discrimination, was the variable most associated with receiving breast, cervical, colorectal, or prostate cancer screening.
Conclusions
The influence of discrimination as a barrier to cancer screening may be modest among Hispanics/Latinos in urban US regions. Having health insurance facilitates cancer screening in this population. Efforts to increase cancer screening in Hispanics/Latinos should focus on increasing access to these services, especially among the uninsured.
Keywords: Perceived discrimination, cancer screening, cancer disparities, epidemiology, prevention
CLASSIFICATIONS: Cancer screening, cohort studies, epidemiology, public health
INTRODUCTION
Cancer has recently surpassed heart disease as the leading cause of death among Hispanics/Latinos in the US 1. Although the incidence of many major cancers including breast, cervical, colorectal, and prostate cancer is lower in Hispanics/Latinos than in non-Hispanic whites, Hispanics/Latinos are more likely than non-Hispanic whites to be diagnosed at later stages of cancer when the disease is more difficult to treat 1. Lower rates of cancer screening in Hispanics/Latinos may contribute to their excess of late-stage cancer diagnoses 2. Hispanics/Latinos are less likely than non-Hispanic whites to receive screening for major cancers 2,3. Previous research has identified multiple individual and system level determinants of cancer screening in Hispanics/Latinos including education, acculturation, annual household income, health insurance coverage, health care access, physician supply, knowledge about cancer, and mistrust of the medical system 3–10. Recent evidence suggests that perceived discrimination is a barrier to preventive health behaviors, including cancer screening 11–14.
The Institute of Medicine identified racial and ethnic discrimination as one of the underlying contributors to health disparities 15. Perceived discrimination may be conceptualized as a stressor that has broad consequences for health 16. Discrimination may trigger a stress response and decrease an individual’s self-control resources, which may lead to nonparticipation in healthful behaviors, such as following cancer screening guidelines 16. A meta-analysis of studies concluded that individuals who perceived that they had experienced discrimination were less likely to engage in favorable health behaviors than those who did not report perceiving discrimination 16. Perceived discrimination has been associated with lower likelihood of receiving Pap smears in African American women 12. Perceived discrimination in the medical setting has been associated with failure to meet the recommendations in clinical guidelines for prostate, colorectal, and breast cancer screening 11,13,14.
While many studies have examined the association between perceived discrimination and cancer screening in African Americans, few studies have investigated this association among Hispanics/Latinos. The Hispanic Community Health Study/Study of Latinos (HCHS/SOL) obtained information on perceptions of discrimination and cancer screening behaviors across categories of Hispanic/Latino adults defined by national background. Unlike some prior studies, HCHS/SOL data captured detailed information on the timing of cancer screening tests, making it possible to examine recency as well as lifetime receipt of screening tests. We analyzed data from the HCHS/SOL Sociocultural Ancillary Study (SCAS) to determine if perceived discrimination is associated with adherence to cancer screening based on contemporary screening guidelines at the time of the baseline examination. We compare three different groups: those who have been screened and are adherent to the guidelines, those who have been screened but are not adherent to the guidelines, and those who have never been screened. We hypothesized that adherence to screening guidelines would be lower among those who perceive discrimination. Understanding the effect of perceived discrimination on adherence to cancer screening across the various subgroups of Hispanics will serve to inform the design of culturally tailored, targeted interventions that increase cancer screening adherence in Hispanics.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
Participants
The HCHS/SOL is a multi-centered observational study of 16,415 Hispanic/Latino men and women aged 18–74 years of age. The details of the study have been described elsewhere 17,18. Briefly, between 2008 and 2011, participants were recruited from four regions in the US: Bronx NY, Chicago IL, Miami FL, and San Diego CA using a two-stage probability sampling of households in selected census tracts. The cohort includes persons identifying as Dominican, Central American, Cuban, Mexican, Puerto Rican, South American or mixed/other. The SCAS is an ancillary study of the HCHS/SOL that enrolled a subset of 5,313 participants who, upon completing the main HCHS/SOL examination, were invited to return for additional psychosocial assessment that included measures of perceived discrimination and cancer screening within 6 months of their baseline examination. IRB approval was obtained at each field center and the coordinating center.
Cancer screening behaviors
The HCHS/SOL cancer questionnaire was used to measure cancer screening behaviors. This questionnaire inquired about the receipt of the following cancer screening tests: mammogram, Pap smear, fecal occult blood test (FOBT), colonscopy/sigmoidoscopy, and Prostate Specific Antigen (PSA).
To assess breast cancer screening women were asked, “A mammogram is an x-ray of the breast to look for breast cancer. Have you ever had a mammogram?” If yes, participants were asked, “When did you have your most recent mammogram to check for breast cancer?” Possible responses included: “a year ago or less,” “more than 1 but not more than 2 years ago,” “more than 2 but not more than 5 years ago” and “over 5 years ago.” Cervical cancer screening was assessed by asking women, “A pap smear is an exam to detect cancer of the neck of the uterus or cervix. Have you ever had a Pap smear?” If participants answered yes they were asked, “When did you have your most recent Pap smear?” Possible responses included: “a year ago or less,” “more than 1 but not more than 2 years ago,” “more than 2 but not more than 5 years ago,” and “over 5 years ago.”
To assess FOBT screening both men and women were asked, “Have you ever had a Fecal Occult Blood Test done with your doctor, in a clinic or using a home kit?” If they answered yes participants were then asked, “When was the last time you had a Fecal Occult Blood Test done with your doctor, in a clinic or using a home kit?”
To assess colonoscopy and/or sigmoidoscopy participants were asked: “Have you ever had either a colonoscopy or sigmoidoscopy?” Possible responses were “yes, a colonoscopy,” “yes, a sigmoidoscopy” and “no.” If participants answered yes to having either a colonoscopy or sigmoidoscopy, they were asked, “When did you have your most recent colonoscopy/sigmoidoscopy?” Responses included: “a year ago or less,” “more than 1 year ago but not more than 5 years ago,” “more than 5 but not more than 10 years ago,” and “over 10 years ago.”
To assess PSA screening, men were asked, “Have you ever heard of a PSA or prostate-specific antigen test?” Respondents that answered “yes” were asked, “Have you ever had a PSA test?” Possible responses included “No,” “Yes, I had a blood test but I don’t know if it checked PSA,” and “refused.” If men reported having a PSA they were asked, “When did you have your most recent PSA?” and possible responses included “A year ago or less,” “More than 1 but not more than 2 years ago,” “More than 2 but not more than 5 years ago,” and “over 5 years ago.”
Adherence to Cancer Screening guidelines
Adherence to breast, cervical, colorectal and prostate cancer screenings was defined as a 3-level categorical variable (screened, adherent; screened, non-adherent; or not screened). Each type of cancer screening was assessed separately within recommended age group and sex. For the purpose of this study we defined adherence to the screening guidelines according to guidelines from United States Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) and the American Cancer Society (ACS) that were in effect during the study years (2008–2011). Adherent was defined as the participant was screened and the screening was within the recommended timeframe. Not adherent was defined as the participant was screened but the screening occurred outside of the recommended timeframe. For each screening test, participants who reported never receiving the test were categorized as “not screened.” A detailed description of adherence by cancer screening guidelines is provided in subsequent text and summarized in Online Resource 1.
Breast and cervical cancer screening
During 2008–2011, the ACS recommended that women 40 and older obtain a mammogram every year 19. In this same age group, the USPSTF recommended obtaining a mammogram every 1 to 2 years 20. The ACS and USPSTF both recommended an annual Papanicolaou (Pap) smear in women beginning three years after first vaginal intercourse but not later than 21 years of age 19,21. Since age of vaginal intercourse was not assessed, all women of reproductive age (age 18 years or older) were included for analysis regarding cervical cancer screening. Cervical cancer screening analyses were restricted to women age 18 years or older and breast cancer analyses were restricted to women age 40 years or older. Women participants were categorized as “screened, adherent” if they reported receipt of the screening test within 2 years, “screened, non-adherent” if they reported receipt of screening test over 2 years prior, and “not screened” if never screened.
Colorectal cancer screening
For men and women age 50 and over, the ACS and USPSTF recommends an annual FOBT, a sigmoidoscopy every 5 years, or a colonoscopy every 10 years 19,22. Participants age 50 years and older reporting FOBT within one year were categorized as “screened, adherent” if they reported FOBT within one year and as “screened, not-adherent” if they reported having FOBT over a year ago. Participants age 50 years and older were categorized as “screened, adherent” if they reported receipt of a colonoscopy within 10 years, receipt of a sigmoidoscopy within 5 years, or receipt of both within 10 years. Those who reported not being sure if they received a sigmoidoscopy or colonoscopy were categorized as “screened, adherent” if they received the test within 5 years.
Prostate cancer screening
Until recently, annual PSA testing beginning at age 50 in men was recommended by the ACS and the USPSTF 19,23. Participants were categorized as “screened, adherent” if they reported receipt of the PSA test within 1 year. Those who reported receipt of the PSA test 2 years ago or more were categorized as “screened, non-adherent.”
Perceived Discrimination
Perceived discrimination was measured using the Brief Perceived Ethnic Discrimination Questionnaire-Community Version (PEDQ). This 17-item scale has been validated in Hispanics/Latinos 24. The PEDQ includes four subscales of perceived discrimination: 1) Exclusion/rejection; 2) Stigmatization/disvaluation; 3) Discrimination at work/school; 4) Threat/anger. The items in each subscale begin with “Because of my ethnicity or race…” and end with a description of some form of mistreatment. For each of the subscales, participants were asked how often they “had these experiences in their lifetime.” Responses are on a scale from “1” (never happened) to “5” (happened very often). The items were added to create a summary score (possible score range 17 to 85); higher scores indicate greater perceived discrimination. The Cronbach’s alpha for internal consistency of the PEDQ was 0.87 for English and 0.91 for Spanish indicating that the instrument is valid in English and Spanish.
Covariates
Age, education, national background, nativity, duration of residency in the US, annual household income, health insurance status, health care use, and family history of cancer were assessed via self-report. Age group was categorized in 10-year intervals (18–29, 30–39, 40–49, 50–59, 60–69, 70–74). Education was categorized into high school or less, high school equivalent, or greater than high school. The following national backgrounds were considered in our analysis: Dominican, Central American, Cuban, Mexican, Puerto Rican, South American, mixed/other). Nativity was assessed as a binary variable (US born [within 50 US states and District of Columbia] or foreign-born [born outside 50 US states and District of Columbia]). Annual household income was assessed as a 3-level variable (<$30,000; ≥$30,000; missing). Participants reporting public or private insurance were categorized as insured and those that reported no insurance were categorized as uninsured. Family history of cancer in first-degree relatives was considered as a binary yes/no variable.
Statistical Analysis
The distribution of categorical variables was described using frequencies and weighted percentages. Differences in perceived discrimination by sex among persons eligible for cancer screening were assessed using student t-tests. Differences in colorectal cancer screening by sex were assessed using Pearson’s X2. Multivariable polytomous logistic regression models were fit to assess the association between perceived discrimination and cancer screening adherence. Models were adjusted for a set of potential confounders chosen a priori including demographic and socioeconomic behaviors that might confound the association of interest. We present findings from a model with relevant covariates associated with cancer screening including age group, nativity, field center, insurance status, and annual household income since further adjustments did not yield different results. Other confounders assessed but not included in the final model were education, national background, duration of residency in the US, health care use, and family history of cancer were assessed via self-report. All analyses accounted for the complex sampling design of HCHS/SOL and were conducted using SAS-callable SUDAAN 11.0 (RTI International, Research Triangle Park, NC).
RESULTS
Population
This analysis included 3,095 women aged 18–74 years old and 840 men aged 50–74 years old with complete data on cancer screening behaviors and perceived ethnic discrimination questionnaire (45 were excluded for missing data), and no personal history of cancer (203 were excluded for cancer history). The SCAS sample that completed questionnaires on discrimination and cancer screening was similar to the overall HCHS/SOL study population in terms of region of residence and nativity. There were slightly higher proportions of Dominicans, women and higher educated people in SCAS compared to the overall HCHS/SOL study population (data not shown).
The distribution of sociodemographic characteristics by sex is presented in Table 1. Two groups of women are presented for comparison: 18–74 year olds and 40–74 year olds. The majority of participants were Mexican followed by Cuban, Puerto Rican, Dominican, Central American, and South American. Overall most respondents reported being born outside of the US, having resided in the US over 10 years, having a high school education or less, and having an annual household income of less than $30,000 (Table 1). By self-report, 52.9% of women 18–74 years old and 40.7% of men 50–74 years old were uninsured.
Table 1.
Demographic characteristics by cancer screening specific age-group and sex, HCHS/SOL SCAS
| Cervical cancer screening | Breast and colorectal cancer screening | Colorectal and prostate cancer screening | |
|---|---|---|---|
|
| |||
| Women, age 18–74 (N=3095) | Women, age 40–74 (N=2267) | Men, age 50–74 (N=840) | |
|
| |||
| % (95% CI) | % (95% CI) | % (95% CI) | |
| National Background | |||
| Dominican | 13.6 (11.0, 16.5) | 12.7 (10.1, 15.9) | 8.5 (6.3, 11.6) |
| Central American | 7.8 (6.3, 9.6) | 6.6 (5.3, 8.3) | 6.0 (4.4, 8.0) |
| Cuban | 17.8 (14.0, 22.4) | 22.3 (17.8, 27.5) | 32.1 (25.8, 39.2) |
| Mexican | 37.6 (33.4, 42.1) | 33.3 (28.4, 38.6) | 25.5 (20.7, 31.1) |
| Puerto Rican | 14.8 (12.4, 17.5) | 17.5 (14.3, 21.2) | 20.1 (16.2, 24.7) |
| South American | 4.7 (3.8, 5.8) | 5.8 (4.6, 7.3) | 6.5 (4.8, 8.6) |
| Mixed/Other | 3.8 (2.5, 5.7) | 1.8 (1.2, 2.8) | 1.3 (0.7, 2.4) |
| Region of Residence | |||
| Bronx | 32.2 (27.2, 37.6) | 31.1 (26.3, 36.3) | 27.0 (22.1, 32.6) |
| Chicago | 15.1 (12.5, 18.1) | 11.9 (9.8, 14.3) | 13.6 (10.7, 17.0) |
| Miami | 27.7 (22.3, 33.8) | 33.1 (27.2, 39.6) | 39.4 (31.9, 47.4) |
| San Diego | 25.1 (20.8, 30.0) | 23.9 (19.2, 29.3) | 20.0 (15.6, 25.4) |
| Age group | |||
| 18–29 | 22.0 (19.6, 24.5) | - | - |
| 30–39 | 20.6 (17.9, 23.7) | - | - |
| 40–49 | 24.4 (22.0, 27.0) | 42.6 (39.3, 45.9) | - |
| 50–59 | 18.4 (16.6, 20.3) | 32.0 (28.9, 35.3) | 54.8 (50.2, 59.3) |
| 60–69 | 11.6 (9.7, 13.7) | 20.0 (17.1, 23.2) | 35.3 (31.1, 39.7) |
| 70–74 | 3.1 (2.2, 4.2) | 5.5 (4.0, 7.4) | 9.9 (7.3, 13.4) |
| Education | |||
| High School or Less | 32.3 (29.3, 35.4) | 35.8 (32.1, 39.7) | 40.6 (35.8, 45.6) |
| High School Equivalent | 26.0 (23.7, 28.5) | 23.3 (20.4, 26.4) | 18.5 (15.7, 21.8) |
| Greater than High School | 41.7 (38.2, 45.3) | 40.9 (37.0, 45.0) | 40.9 (36.4, 45.5) |
| Nativity | |||
| US Born | 20.0 (17.5, 22.9) | 9.5 (8.0, 11.4) | 8.7 (6.3, 11.9) |
| Foreign-born | 80.0 (77.2, 82.5) | 90.5 (88.6, 92.1) | 91.3 (88.1, 93.7) |
| Years in US, mean | 19.6 (18.4–20.8) | 22.5 (20.8–24.2) | 27.9 (25.7–30.2) |
| Annual Household Income | |||
| <$30,000 | 68.3 (65.2, 71.2) | 70.6 (66.5, 74.3) | 68.4 (63.3, 73.2) |
| ≥$30,000 | 24.3 (21.2, 27.7) | 22.4 (18.7, 26.6) | 28.6 (24.0, 33.7) |
| Missing | 7.4 (6.0, 9.1) | 7.0 (5.6, 8.7) | 3.0 (1.9, 4.7) |
| Health Insurance | |||
| Insured | 52.9 (49.7, 56.1) | 55.5 (51.5, 59.4) | 59.3 (54.2, 64.2) |
| Uninsured | 52.9, 50.3) | 44.5 (51.5) | 40.7 (35.8, 45.8) |
| Could not see PCP when needed in last 12 months | |||
| Yes | 16.4 (14.0, 19.1) | 19.0 (15.8, 22.7) | 14.3 (10.7, 18.7) |
| No | 83.6 (80.9, 86.1) | 81.0 (77.3, 84.2) | 85.7 (81.3, 89.3) |
| Family history of cancer | |||
| Yes | 23.9 (21.8, 26.0) | 30.1 (27.3, 33.0) | 27.9 (23.9, 32.3) |
| No | 76.2 (74.0, 78.2) | 69.9 (67.0, 72.7) | 72.1 (67.7, 76.1) |
CI = confidence interval; PCP= primary care provider
Screening adherence
Table 2 reports the percentage of men and women adhering to cancer screening guidelines. Among women, 72.1% (95% CI: 69.2%, 74.7%) received a Pap smear within the recommended time frame and 71.3% (95% CI: 67.7%, 74.6%) received a mammogram during the recommended time frame. In participants aged 50–74, adherence to recommendations for any colorectal cancer screening modality, including FOBT or colonoscopy or sigmoidoscopy, was not different between men and women. Adherence to FOBT was 24.6% (95% CI: 19.4%, 30.6%) among women and 27.0% (95% CI: 22.9%, 31.5%) among men. Adherence to colonoscopy/sigmoidoscopy guidelines was significantly higher among women than among men: 43.5% (95% CI: 37.8%, 49.5%) of women and 34.8% (95% CI: 30.0%, 39.9%) of men were adherent to colonoscopy/sigmoidoscopy guidelines. An estimated 41.0% (95% CI: 36.1%, 46.2%) of men were adherent to PSA screening guidelines.
Table 2.
Mean discrimination (PEDQ) scores and cancer screening adherence by sex, HCHS/SOL SCAS
| Women, age 18–74 N=3095 |
Men, age 50–74 N=840 |
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| |||||
| Subgroup N | Mean (95% CI) | Subgroup N | Mean (95% CI) | P-value* | |
| Perceived Discrimination (PEDQ score) | 3095 | 24.0 (23.6, 24.4) | 840 | 25.4 (24.3, 26.5) | 0.01 |
|
| |||||
| Subgroup N | % (95% CI) | Subgroup N | % (95% CI) | P-value* | |
|
| |||||
| Pap smear (18–74 years) | - | ||||
| Screened, adherent to guidelines | 2222 | 72.1 (69.2, 74.7) | - | ||
| Screened, not adherent to guidelines | 642 | 18.5 (16.2, 20.9) | - | ||
| Not screened | 212 | 9.5 (8.1, 11.2) | - | ||
| Mammography (40–74 years) | - | ||||
| Screened, adherent to guidelines | 1683 | 71.3 (67.7, 74.6) | - | ||
| Screened, not adherent to guidelines | 333 | 15.2 (13.0, 17.8) | - | ||
| Not screened | 244 | 13.5 (11.1, 16.3) | - | ||
| FOBT/Colonoscopy/Sigmoidoscopy ( 50–74 years) | 0.27 | ||||
| Screened, adherent to guidelines | 663 | 52.1 (46.5, 57.7) | 373 | 48.8 (43.9, 53.8) | |
| Screened, not adherent to guidelines | 127 | 11.8 (8.3, 16.6) | 79 | 10.3 (7.6, 13.9) | |
| Not screened | 505 | 36.1 (31.4, 41.1) | 331 | 40.9 (36.0, 45.9) | |
| FOBT ( 50–74 years) | 0.80 | ||||
| Screened, adherent to guidelines | 287 | 24.6 (19.4, 30.6) | 213 | 27.0 (22.9, 31.5) | |
| Screened, not adherent to guidelines | 280 | 22.8 (18.5, 27.7) | 154 | 21.4 (17.4, 26.0) | |
| Not screened | 714 | 52.6 (47.3, 57.9) | 411 | 51.7 (46.8, 56.5) | |
| Colonoscopy/Sigmoidoscopy ( 50–74 years) | 0.01 | ||||
| Screened, adherent to guidelines | 535 | 43.5 (37.8, 49.5) | 272 | 34.8 (30.0, 39.9) | |
| Screened, not adherent to guidelines | 52 | 6.4 (3.4, 11.6) | 30 | 4.5 (2.6, 7.8) | |
| Not screened | 705 | 50.1 (44.7, 55.5) | 480 | 60.7 (55.0, 66.1) | |
| PSA screening ( 50–74 years) | - | ||||
| Screened, adherent to guidelines | - | 277 | 41.0 (36.1, 46.2) | ||
| Screened, not adherent to guidelines | - | 217 | 30.1 (25.9, 34.7) | ||
| Not screened | - | 199 | 28.9 (24.3, 33.9) | ||
All values (except the number of subjects) weighted for study design and nonresponse.
Abbreviations: CI = confidence interval; FOBT = Fecal Occult Blood Test; PEDQ = Perceived Ethnic Discrimination Questionnaire; PSA = Prostate Specific Antigen
P-values calculated using Student’s t-test for continuous variables and X2square tests for categorical variables
Perceived Discrimination
Perceived discrimination scores were significantly higher among men than among women (P = 0.01). The mean PEDQ score was 24.0 (95% CI: 23.6, 24.4) among women and 25.4 (95% CI: 24.3, 26.5) among men. The results of multivariable polytomous logistic regression models studying the association between perceived discrimination and cancer screening adherence among women and men are reported in Tables 3 and 4, respectively. Among women, we observed no significant association of perceived discrimination with breast or cervical or colorectal cancer screening in unadjusted or adjusted analyses (Table 3). Among men, a 1-point increase in PEDQ score was associated with a 4% increase in odds of being screened but not adherent to FOBT guidelines compared to being screened and adherent (OR: 1.04, 95% CI: 1.01–1.07). However, a similar 1-point increase in PEDQ score was associated with a 4% decrease in odds of being screened at all for colorectal cancer via colonoscopy and/or sigmoidoscopy, compared to being screened and adherent (OR: 0.96, 95% CI: 0.94, 0.99) (Table 4).
Table 3.
Association between perceived discrimination and cancer screening among women
| Pap smear (Women, 18–74 years) | Mammography (Women, 40–74 years) | FOBT and or Colonoscopy and or Sigmoidoscopy (Women, 50–74 years) | FOBT (Women, 50–74 years) | Colonoscopy and or Sigmoidoscopy (Women, 50–74 years) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| |||||
| n = 2716 | n=1997 | n=1362 | n = 1188 | n = 1198 | |
|
|
|||||
| OR (95% CI)a | |||||
| PEDQ score, 1 unit increaseb | |||||
| Screened, adherent to guidelines | Ref | Ref | Ref | Ref | Ref |
| Screened, not adherent to guidelines | 1.00 (0.99, 1.02) | 0.99 (0.97, 1.01) | 0.85 (0.32, 2.28) | 1.02 (0.97, 1.07) | 0.97 (0.92, 1.03) |
| Not screened | 0.99 (0.97, 1.02) | 0.98 (0.96, 1.01) | 0.93 (0.47, 1.81) | 1.01 (0.97, 1.05) | 0.98 (0.96, 1.00) |
| Nativity, foreign-born vs US bornc | |||||
| Screened, adherent to guidelines | Ref | Ref | Ref | Ref | Ref |
| Screened, not adherent to guidelines | 1.53 (0.95, 2.46) | 1.82 (1.04, 3.21) | 1.00 (0.96, 1.03) | 2.16 (0.88, 5.33) | 0.38 (0.10, 1.51) |
| Not screened | 1.62 (0.97, 2.70) | 1.32 (0.59, 2.95) | 0.99 (0.97, 1.01) | 1.47 (0.62, 3.47) | 0.83 (0.43, 1.60) |
| Health insurance status, insured vs not insuredd | |||||
| Screened, adherent to guidelines | Ref | Ref | Ref | Ref | Ref |
| Screened, not adherent to guidelines | 1.99 (1.52, 2.61) | 3.07 (2.16, 4.36) | 4.54 (1.56, 13.26) | 2.61 (1.24, 5.49) | 6.96 (1.25, 38.9) |
| Not screened | 1.06 (0.65, 1.73) | 2.97 (1.88, 4.70) | 2.53 (1.80, 3.57) | 2.29 (1.44, 3.65) | 2.94 (2.12, 4.08) |
Abbreviations: OR = Odds Ratio; CI = Confidence Interval; FOBT = Fecal Occult Blood test; PEDQ = Perceived Ethnic Discrimination Questionnaire; Ref = Referent Category
All values, except n, are weighted to account for complex survey design.
OR of not receiving screening as per guidelines for each 1 unit increase in PEDQ score, adjusted for age group, nativity, field center, annual household income, and insurance status.
OR of not receiving screening as per guidelines of those born within the US compared to those born outside of US states, adjusted for PEDQ score, age group, field center, annual household income, and insurance status.
OR of not receiving screening as per guidelines compared to those without insurance compared to those with insurance, adjusted for PEDQ score, age group, nativity, field center, and annual household income status.
Table 4.
Association between perceived discrimination and cancer screening among men
| FOBT and or Colonoscopy and or Sigmoidoscopy (Women, 50–74 years) | FOBT (Men, 50–74 years) | Colonoscopy and/or Sigmoidoscopy (Men, 50–74 years) | PSA screening (Men, 50–74 years) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| ||||
| N=833 | n=771 | n=776 | n=643 | |
|
|
||||
| OR (95% CI)a | ||||
| PEDQ score, 1 unit increaseb | ||||
| Screened, adherent to guidelines | Ref | Ref | Ref | Ref |
| Screened, not adherent to guidelines | 1.02 (0.98, 1.05) | 1.04 (1.01, 1.07) | 1.03 (0.97, 1.08) | 1.00 (0.97, 1.02) |
| Not screened | 0.98 (0.96, 1.01) | 1.01 (0.99, 1.04) | 0.96 (0.94, 0.99) | 0.99 (0.96, 1.02) |
| Nativity, foreign-born vs US bornc | ||||
| Screened, adherent to guidelines | Ref | Ref | Ref | Ref |
| Screened, not adherent to guidelines | 2.36 (0.91, 6.11) | 1.15 (0.49, 2.71) | 1.62 (0.22, 11.70) | 1.64 (0.72, 3.71) |
| Not screened | 1.06 (0.54, 2.07) | 0.73 (0.35, 1.49) | 1.84 (0.82, 4.12) | 1.54 (0.62, 3.86) |
| Health insurance status, insured vs not insuredd | ||||
| Screened, adherent to guidelines | Ref | Ref | Ref | Ref |
| Screened, not adherent to guidelines | 3.92 (2.17, 7.09) | 1.97 (1.05, 3.67) | 3.43 (1.49, 7.89) | 2.62 (1.57, 4.38) |
| Not screened | 5.10 (3.17, 8.21) | 4.36 (2.43, 7.82) | 4.51 (2.81, 7.23) | 3.96 (2.14, 7.34) |
Abbreviations: CI = Confidence Interval; FOBT = Fecal Occult Blood test; PEDQ = Perceived Ethnic Discrimination Questionnaire; Ref = Referent Category
All values are weighted, except n, to account to complex survey design.
OR of not receiving screening as per guidelines for each 1 unit increase in PEDQ score, adjusted for age group, nativity, field center, annual household income, and insurance status.
OR of not receiving screening as per guidelines of those born within the US compared to those born outside of US states, adjusted for PEDQ score, age group, field center, annual household income, and insurance status.
OR of not receiving screening as per guidelines compared to those without insurance compared to those with insurance status, adjusted for PEDQ score, age group, nativity, field center, and annual household income.
Other covariates
Nativity
US born women were significantly more likely to be screened via mammography outside the recommended guidelines than foreign-born women (OR: 1.82, 95% CI: 1.04–3.21). Nativity was not consistently associated with behaviors across cancer sites. There was no association between nativity and cancer screening adherence for cervical cancer screening, prostate cancer screening, or colorectal cancer screening in both women and men.
Health insurance status
Insurance status was an important predictor of cancer screening for both women and men. Among women, not having health insurance was a significant independent predictor of not adhering to guidelines on Pap smear testing, mammography, and colonoscopy/sigmoidoscopy (Table 3). Among women, not having insurance was also statistically significantly associated with not being screened via mammography, FOBT, and colonoscopy/sigmoidoscopy. Among men, not having health insurance was a significant independent predictor of not adhering to FOBT and colonoscopy/sigmoidoscopy guidelines (Table 4). Not having insurance was associated with higher likelihood of not being screened via FOBT, colonoscopy/sigmoidoscopy, and PSA. Insured participants and uninsured participants had similar PEDQ scores, suggesting that they were equally likely to report perceived discrimination.
DISCUSSION
Cancer is now the leading cause of death among Hispanics/Latinos in the US 1. Early detection of cancer through screening may reduce cancer morbidity and increase five-year survival rates 1. We evaluated data from a large, multicenter epidemiological study of Hispanics/Latinos from diverse backgrounds in four US urban areas to determine if perceived discrimination, defined by the PEDQ, a measure of lifetime ethnicity-related discrimination, was associated with lack of receiving cancer screening. In contrast to previous studies, we found no evidence of a significant association between perceived discrimination and cancer screening in women. In men, the association between discrimination and colorectal cancer screening reached nominal levels of statistical significance, albeit the direction of the association was not consistent with our hypothesis and the results were not consistent across screening tests.
In the Black Women’s Health Study, a convenience sample of African American women, higher perceived everyday discrimination was associated with reduced cervical cancer (Pap test) screening, but was unassociated with colorectal cancer screening 12. In the multi-ethnic California Health Interview 2003 and 2005 Surveys (CHIS), women who reported higher levels of discrimination in the medical care context (“medical discrimination”) were significantly less likely to be screened for both colorectal and breast cancer. This finding persisted after controlling for ethnicity and several health-related factors including access to health insurance and usual source of care. the CHIS questionnaire specifically asked about whether individuals perceived discrimination in medical settings, and the discordance between CHIS and the present study may suggest that it is important to capture discrimination that is perceived to occur specifically within health care settings 13. In the CHIS, however, no association between medical discrimination and colorectal cancer screening was observed in men13. Discrepancies among the findings in the Black Women’s Health Study, the CHIS and our study may be explained by different measurement properties of specific self-reported discrimination scales, or by variability among groups in the experience and effects of discrimination. The CHIS sample was much larger and included not only Hispanic/Latinos but also African American, Asian, and American Indian/American Indians and all participants were Californians, unlike our sample which included U.S. residents from four different states. Other specific characteristics of the HCHS/SOL cohort that may be important include a predominance of Spanish speakers and immigrants living in large urban centers who were recruited using door-to-door recruitment methods. In the CHIS the respondents were selected by random digit telephone number dialing and included participants from rural, suburban, and urban settings. It is possible that the presence of extensive safety net services and community resources in the four HCHS/SOL centers, including government-funded screening programs, may mitigate any relationship between discrimination and screening behaviors that may exist elsewhere.
Several limitations of our study warrant discussion. Our definitions of cancer screening adherence were based on cancer screening guidelines that are subject to debate. There is much controversy regarding the age to begin screening and the appropriate frequency for each screening tests. Screening guidelines differ between major cancer organizations. However, we used screening guidelines from two national organizations, ACS and the USPSTF to guide our definitions. During the time of study recruitment the screening guidelines from different organizations were more consistent with each other than they are at the current time.
Even with consistent guidelines in place, recommendations about cancer screening likely vary among primary care providers and may be dependent on individual patient characteristics. In the case of cervical cancer, for example, one primary care provider may have advised a female who initiated sexual activity during her early teenage years to initiate screening for cervical cancer at age 18, while another may have advised to initiate screening at age 21. This study did not account for the variability in provider recommendations for cancer screening. Indeed, evidence suggests that factors like a patient’s ethnicity, level of education and income may influence provider recommendations for cancer screening 24–26.
Our measure of perceived discrimination is a measure of lifetime discrimination rather than current, everyday, or medical discrimination. In a prior study, measures of everyday discrimination were strongly correlated with the global measure of perceived discrimination that was used here 27.
Another limitation was assessment of information about cancer screening behaviors via self-report which is potentially subject to recall bias. It has been established that self-reported data may tend to overestimate the true measure of cancer screening utilization. Validation studies have reported that estimates of cancer screening rates are inflated in self-reported data, particularly among Blacks and Hispanic/Latinos 28,29. This study did not account for the participants’ levels of health knowledge and cancer awareness. It is possible that items in the HCHS/SOL cancer questionnaire used to measure cancer screening behaviors may not have been understood by participants with low levels of education and cancer awareness, leading to misclassification. Participants may have answered questionnaires in a way perceived as desired and/or expected, leading to false positive responses to questions about screening practices and underreporting of discrimination 30. Lastly, the data used in this study were cross-sectional. Thus, causal inferences about the associations reported in this study cannot be made.
Of note, screening rates for breast, cervical, colorectal, and prostate cancer in this cohort of Hispanic/Latinos are lower than the Healthy People 2020 goals 31. The percentages of screening reported in this cohort are also generally lower than studies using data from 2010 National Health Interview Survey (NHIS) 31. Cervical cancer screening among Hispanic/Latina women was 76.9% in NHIS and 72.1% in HCHS/SOL, both measures below the Healthy People 2020 target of 93.0% 32. In this study not having health insurance was a significant independent predictor of not receiving screening and not being up to date with screening. The powerful effect of health insurance status was seen for every screening test and among both men and women. These results are consistent with data from the 2010 NHIS and 2010 ACS, which indicated that uninsured compared to insured persons were less likely to report receiving recent cancer screening. For example, uninsured women 40 and older were less likely to report receiving a mammogram within the past two years (31.5% versus 70.7%, respectively) 33.
The HCHS/SOL SCAS cohort was mostly foreign-born and reported low levels of education, income and health insurance coverage. Because having insurance has been identified a key determinant of cancer screening, policies that increase insurance coverage among Hispanics/Latinos may increase screening rates in this population. The Affordable Care Act (ACA) has the potential to result in large reductions in uninsurance rates among Hispanics/Latinos 34. It remains to be seen how the implementation of the ACA will affect access to screening services in this vulnerable population 34, and an estimated 33.1% of Hispanics/Latinos may remain presently uninsured 35. Several states with large numbers of Hispanic/Latino residents including Texas and Florida have not taken the steps encouraged by the ACA to expand Medicaid to low-income adults. Additionally, more than 5 million undocumented people living in the US (over 80% of whom are Hispanic/Latino) will remain uninsured in the forseeable future 34. In this population with high levels of uninsured, increasing health care coverage and awareness of the existing state and sliding scale screening services may be important ways to increase screening. Finally, we speculate that in the Hispanic population, barriers relating to health insurance and related factors probably overwhelm or obscure any possible effects of discrimination on cancer screening adherence.
Supplementary Material
Acknowledgments
FINANCIAL SUPPORT:
The Hispanic Community Health Study/Study of Latinos was carried out as a collaborative study supported by contracts from the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute (NHLBI) to the University of North Carolina (N01-HC65233), University of Miami (N01-HC65234), Albert Einstein College of Medicine (N01-HC65235), Northwestern University (N01-HC65236), and San Diego State University (N01-HC65237).
The following Institutes/Centers/Offices contribute to the HCHS/SOL through a transfer of funds to the NHLBI: National Center on Minority Health and Health Disparities, the National Institute of Deafness and Other Communications Disorders, the National Institute of Dental and Craniofacial Research, the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases, the National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke, and the Office of Dietary Supplements.
The HCHS/SOL Sociocultural Ancillary Study was supported by grant 1RC2HL101649 from the NHLBI/NIH. The Exito! Latino Cancer Research Training program is supported by grant 1R25CA134301-01A2.
Dr. Greenlee is supported by grants K23CA141052 and R01 CA186080 from the National Cancer Institute.
References
- 1.Siegel R, Naishadham D, Jemal A. Cancer Statistics for Hispanics/Latinos, 2012. CA Cancer J Clin. 2012;62:283–298. doi: 10.3322/caac.21153. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 2.Klabunde C, Brown M, Ballard-Barbash R, et al. Cancer Screening-United States, 2010. Atlanta: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention; 2012. [Google Scholar]
- 3.Wells KJ, Roetzheim RG. Health Disparities in Receipt of Screening Mammography in Latinas: A Critical Review of Recent Literature. Cancer Control. 2007;14(4):369–379. doi: 10.1177/107327480701400407. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 4.Byrd T, Chavez R, Wilson K. Barriers and facilitators of cervical cancer screening among Hispanic women. Ethnic Disparities. 2007;17(1):129–134. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 5.Davis JL, Bynum SA, Katz RV, Buchanan K, Green BL. Sociodemographic differences in fears and mistrust contributing to unwillingness to participate in cancer screenings. J Health Care Poor Underserved. 2012;23:67–76. doi: 10.1353/hpu.2012.0148. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 6.Gonzalez P, Castaneda SF, Mills PJ, Talavera GA, Elder JP, Gallo LC. Determinants of breast, cervical and colorectal cancer screening adherence in Mexican American Women. J Community Health. 2012;37(2):421–433. doi: 10.1007/s10900-011-9459-2. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 7.Jerant AF, Fenton JJ, Franks P. Determinants of racial/ethnic colorectal cancer screening disparities. Arch Intern Med. 2008;168(12):1317–1324. doi: 10.1001/archinte.168.12.1317. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 8.Johnson C, Mues K, Mayne S, Kiblawi A. Cervical cancer screening among immigrants and ethnic minorities: a systematic review using the Health Belief Model. J Low Genit Tract Disord. 2008;12(3):232–241. doi: 10.1097/LGT.0b013e31815d8d88. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 9.Soneji S, Armstrong K, Asch DA. Socioeconomic and physician supply determinants of racial disparities in colorectal cancer screening. J Oncol Pract. 2012;8(5):125–134. doi: 10.1200/JOP.2011.000511. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 10.Mack KP, Pavao J, Tabnak F, Knutson K, Kimerling R. Adherence to recent screening mammography among Latinas: findings from the California Women’s Health Survey. J Womens Health. 2009;18(3):347–354. doi: 10.1089/jwh.2008.0793. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 11.Shariff-Marco S, Klassen A, Bowie J. Racial/ethnic differences in self-reported racism and its association with cancerrelated health behaviors. Am J Public Health. 2010;100(2):364–374. doi: 10.2105/AJPH.2009.163899. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 12.Mouton C, Carter-Nolan P, Makambi K, Taylor T. Impact of perceived discrimination on health screening in black women. J Health Care Poor Underserved. 2010;21(1):287–300. doi: 10.1353/hpu.0.0273. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 13.Crawley L, Ahn D, Winkleby M. Perceived Medical Discrimination and Cancer Screening Behaviors of Racial and Ethnic Minority Adults. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev. 2008;17(8):1937–1944. doi: 10.1158/1055-9965.EPI-08-0005. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 14.Facione N, Facione P. Perceived prejudice in healthcare and women’s health protective behavior. Nurs Res. 2007;56(3):175–184. doi: 10.1097/01.NNR.0000270026.90359.4c. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 15.Smedley BD, Stith AY, Nelson AR. Institute of Medicine, Committee on Understanding and Eliminating Racial and Ethnic Disparities in Health Care. Unequal treatment: confronting racial and ethnic disparities in health care. National Academies Press; Washington: 2003. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 16.Pascoe E, Richman L. Perceived discrimination and health: a meta-analytic review. Psychol Bull. 2009;135(4):531–554. doi: 10.1037/a0016059. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 17.LaVange LM, Kalsbeek WD, Sorlie PD, et al. Sample design and cohort selection in the Hispanic Community Health Study/Study of Latinos. Ann Epidemiol. 2010;20(8):642–649. doi: 10.1016/j.annepidem.2010.05.006. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 18.Sorlie PD, Avile´s-Santa LM, Wassertheil-Smoller S, et al. Design and Implementation of the Hispanic Community Health Study/Study of Latinos. Ann Epidemiol. 2010;20(8):629–641. doi: 10.1016/j.annepidem.2010.03.015. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 19.Chronological History of ACS Recommendations for the Early Detection of Cancer in Asymptomatic People. American Cancer Society; 2013. [Accessed July 20, 2015]. http://www.cancer.org/healthy/findcancerearly/cancerscreeningguidelines/chronological-history-of-acs-recommendations. [Google Scholar]
- 20.National Cancer Institute. [Accessed 3 Dec 2013];Screening and Testing to Detect Breast Cancer. 2013 http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/screening/breast.
- 21.National Cancer Institute. [Accessed 3 Dec 2013];Cervical Cancer Screening PDQ. 2013 http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/pdq/screening/cervical/patient.
- 22.National Cancer Institute. [Accessed 3 Dec 2013];Colorectal Cancer Screening PDQ. 2013 http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/pdq/screening/colorectal/
- 23.National Cancer Institute. [Accessed 3 Dec 2013];Prostate Specific Antigen (PSA) Test. 2013 http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/factsheet/detection/PSA.
- 24.Brondolo E, Kelly K, Coakley V, Gordon T, Thompson S, Levy E. The Perceived Ethnic Discrimination Questionnaire: development and preliminary validation of a community version. J Appl Soc Psychol. 2005;35(2):335–365. [Google Scholar]
- 25.Ahmed NU, Pelletier V, Winter K, Albatineh AN. Factors explaining racial/ethnic disparities in rates of physician recommendation for colorectal cancer screening. Am J Public Health. 2013;103(7):e91–e99. doi: 10.2105/AJPH.2012.301034. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 26.Ye J, Xu Z, Aladesanmi O. Provider recommendation for colorectal cancer screening: examining the role of patients’ socioeconomic status and health insurance. Cancer Epidemiol. 2009;33(3):207–211. doi: 10.1016/j.canep.2009.07.011. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 27.Benjamins MR. Comparing measures of racial/ethnic discrimination, coping, and associations with health-related outcomes in a diverse sample. J Urban Health. 2013;90(5):832–848. doi: 10.1007/s11524-013-9787-x. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 28.Allgood KL, Rauscher GH, Whitman S, Vasquez-Jones G, Shah AM. Validating self-reported mammography use in vulnerable communities: findings and recommendations. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev. 2014;23(8):1649–1658. doi: 10.1158/1055-9965.EPI-13-1253. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 29.Howard M, Agarwal G, Lytwyn A. Accuracy of self-reports of Pap and mammography screening compared to medical record: a meta-analysis. Cancer Causes Control. 2009;20(1):1–13. doi: 10.1007/s10552-008-9228-4. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 30.Johnson TP, O’Rouke DP, Burris JE, Warneke RB. An investigation of the effects of social desirability bias on the validity of self-reports of cancer screening behaviors. Med Care. 2005;43(6):565–573. doi: 10.1097/01.mlr.0000163648.26493.70. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 31.Klabunde C, Brown M, Ballard-Barbash R, et al. Cancer screening—United States 2010. CDC Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 2012;61(3):41–45. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 32.Sabatino SA, White MC, Thompson TD, Klabunde CN. Cancer screening test use—United States, 2013. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 2015;64(17):464–468. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 33.American Cancer Society. Cancer prevention and early detection facts and figures. American Cancer Society; Atlanta: 2013. [Google Scholar]
- 34.Clemans-Cope L, Kenney GM, Buettgens M, Carroll C, Blavin F. The Affordable Care Act’s coverage expansion will reduce differences in uninsurance rates by race and ethnicity. Health Aff. 2012;31(5):920–930. doi: 10.1377/hlthaff.2011.1086. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 35.Levy J. US uninsured rate holds steady at 13.4%: uninsured rate declining most among blacks and Hispanics. [Accessed July 2015];Wellbeing. 2014 http://www.gallup.com/poll/170882/uninsured-rate-holdssteady.aspx.
Associated Data
This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.