4.1 Article

Racial Disparities in Lung Cancer Screening: An Exploratory Investigation

期刊

JOURNAL OF THE NATIONAL MEDICAL ASSOCIATION
卷 110, 期 5, 页码 424-427

出版社

NATL MED ASSOC
DOI: 10.1016/j.jnma.2017.09.003

关键词

Lung neoplasms; Early detection of cancer; Health disparity; African American; Patient protection and affordable care act

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background/Purpose: Lung cancer is the leading cause of cancer death in the United States. Black Americans have the highest rate of lung cancer mortality, due to being diagnosed at later stage. Lung Cancer Screening (LCS) facilitates earlier detection and has been associated with a reduction in cancer death. We investigated LCS utilization and explored racial disparities (Black vs. non-Black) in LCS among patients for whom LCS is clinically indicated. Methods: Using electronic medical records from the Lifespan Medical System, we randomly selected 200 patients who were likely to meet U. S. Preventive Services Taskforce (USPSTF) guidelines for LCS and mailed each patient a survey to assess LCS eligibility and uptake. Results: Nearly three-quarters (n = 146, 73%) completed the survey and, of survey respondents, 92% (n = 134) were eligible for the study. Among eligible patients, 35% met criteria for LCS; non-Black patients were 90% more likely to meet criteria for LCS than Black patients (44% vs. 27%). Of the patients meeting USPSTF criteria, only 21% reported being screened; eligible non-Black patients were 2.8 times more likely to have had LCS than eligible Black patients (30% vs. 12%). Conclusions: LCS utilization is low despite coverage provided through the Affordable Care Act. Black patients are less likely to qualify for screening and disproportionately less likely to be screened for lung cancer compared with non-Black patients. Targeted intervention strategies are needed to increase referral for and uptake of LCS in patients who are at high risk for developing lung cancer, and for Black patients in particular.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.1
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据