Cargando…

Prevalence and Factors Associated With Oral Cavity and Pharyngeal Cancer Screening in a Rural Population

OBJECTIVE: (1) To quantify the prevalence of provider recommendation and receipt of oral cavity and pharyngeal cancer (OCPC) screening and (2) to examine the factors associated with OCPC screening recommendation and receipt among adults. STUDY DESIGN: Cross-sectional. SETTING: Rural counties in cent...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Matos, Sophia, Boakye, Eric Adjei, Crosby, Dana, Sharma, Arun
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: SAGE Publications 2021
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8671683/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34926974
http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/2473974X211065018
Descripción
Sumario:OBJECTIVE: (1) To quantify the prevalence of provider recommendation and receipt of oral cavity and pharyngeal cancer (OCPC) screening and (2) to examine the factors associated with OCPC screening recommendation and receipt among adults. STUDY DESIGN: Cross-sectional. SETTING: Rural counties in central Illinois. METHODS: This study among adults (N = 145) was conducted between January 1 and June 30, 2017. The outcomes of interest were provider recommendation and receipt of OCPC screening. Multivariable logistic regression models were used to examine the association between (1) sociodemographic, health care access and utilization, and OCPC risk factors and (2) provider recommendation and receipt of OCPC screening. RESULTS: The prevalence of provider recommendation and receipt of OCPC screening was 12.4% and 28.3%, respectively. Approximately 15% of current smokers, 13% of participants who consume alcohol, and 10% of participants with ≥5 lifetime sexual partners had received an OCPC screening recommendation. OCPC screening rates were 19% for current smokers, 30% for those who consume alcohol, and 32% for those with ≥5 lifetime sexual partners. In the adjusted analyses, respondents with ≥5 partners (adjusted odds ratio, 3.10 [95% CI, 1.25-7.66]) had a higher odds of receiving OCPC screening than those with <5. There were no significant associations between other OCPC risk factors and provider recommendation and receipt of OCPC screening. CONCLUSION: OCPC screening recommendation and receipt were low; only number of lifetime sexual partners was associated with OCPC screening receipt. Our findings suggest that rural populations may be vulnerable to late-stage diagnosis of OCPC, and interventions to help improve screening rates are warranted.