Source link <\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"Add topic to email alerts Receive an email when new articles are posted on Please provide your email address to receive an email when new articles are posted on . ” data-action=subscribe> Subscribe We were unable to process your request. Please try again later. If you continue to have this issue please contact customerservice@slackinc.com. Back to Healio Key takeaways: Researchers estimate almost 18 million women aged 45 to 64 years are not up to date with breast, cervical or colorectal cancer screenings. More than 3 million women may be overdue for all those screenings. Nearly 18 million women in the U.S. aged 45 to 64 years are likely overdue for breast, cervical or colorectal cancer screenings, and more than 3 million are estimated to not be up to date on all three. Survey data from 68,000 women showed that having annual wellness visits and a regular health care provider significantly increased the likelihood of being up to date with at least one, as well as all screenings. Greater educational attainment and being insured also were associated with higher screening uptake. Data derived from Spencer JC, et al. JAMA Netw Open. 2026;doi:10.1001\/jamanetworkopen.2026.12976. However, interventions targeting multiple screenings could be beneficial, as only 50% of the cohort reported having all their tests completed. Jennifer C. Spencer \u201cWe tend to think about these [screenings] in silos,\u201d Jennifer C. Spencer, PhD, assistant professor in the departments of population health and internal medicine at The University of Texas at Austin Dell Medical School, told Healio. \u201cPeople tend to research one cancer screening or develop interventions to address colorectal cancer screening, or breast cancer screening, or cervical cancer screening. Those are really important, but we really have a chance to intervene holistically with those folks who are due for screenings, and identify everything that they\u2019re due for.\u201d \u2018Are there patterns?\u2019 Cancer is the leading cause of death among women aged 45 to 64 years in the U.S., according to study background. More than 70,000 women will die from breast, cervical or colorectal cancer alone this year, according to American Cancer Society\u2019s Cancer Statistics 2026 report. Prior research has shown that patients who screen for these malignancies are diagnosed at earlier stages and have improved cancer-specific mortality. However, many women are not up to date on screening. NCI estimates 20.2% of eligible patients have not had a mammogram in the past 2 years, and the numbers increase for those who are overdue for cervical (24.1%) and colorectal cancer (26.1%) screenings. \u201cWe see so many similar patterns in who doesn\u2019t get screened for breast cancer, for cervical cancer and for colorectal cancer,\u201d Spencer said. \u201cInsurance, access to care, having a regular care provider are commonly associated with lower screening rates.\u201d Yet, most investigations and interventions focus solely on screening for a single malignancy, even though there can be broad eligibility overlap, particularly for patients aged 45 to 64 years. \u201cWhat if we looked at all of this in one question?\u201d Spencer asked. \u201cWhat are the patterns within these three cancer screenings for the women who are due? Are there patterns that are very clear about who is due for just one, or all three, or none?\u201d Spencer and colleagues used data from the 2024 Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance Survey, a nationally representative survey, to investigate. Their final sample included 68,111 women (mean age, 54.8 years; standard deviation, 5.8; 69.6% white), which represented a weighted U.S. population of 36.2 million. Up to date use of breast, cervical and colorectal cancer screenings served as the primary endpoint. \u2018Halfway there\u2019 Researchers found 50.3% of women to be up to date with all three screenings, 28.8% with two and 13.2% with one, while 7.7% were not up to date with any screenings. \u201cWe were surprised at the women who were up to date on some, but not all screenings,\u201d Spencer said. \u201cI expected it to be either you\u2019re pro-screening and you get everything, or you\u2019re less likely to screen and you get nothing.\u201d \u201cHalf of women being up to date on all three was lower than I expected, but my clinical colleagues were pleasantly surprised that half of women were up to date,\u201d she added. \u201cThey spend so much of their time trying to get people to use these cancer screenings, they were like, \u2018We\u2019re halfway there. That\u2019s pretty good.\u2019\u201d Factors that had a significant association with being up to date for at least one screening compared with none included having a checkup in the previous year (adjusted RR = 1.22; 95% CI, 1.19-1.25), having a regular health care practitioner (aRR = 1.18; 95% CI, 1.13-1.23), being Black (aRR = 1.02; 95% CI, 1.01-1.04) or Hispanic (aRR = 1.06; 95% CI, 1.05-1.08) vs. white, having a high school degree or greater educational attainment, having insurance, being older, and being able to afford care in the previous year. Most of those factors also had a significant association with being up to date with all screenings vs. any screening, but with greater magnitudes. Women up to date with all their screenings had a higher likelihood of having a wellness visit in the past year (aRR = 1.71; 95% CI, 1.57-1.86), a regular health care practitioner (aRR = 1.43; 95% CI, 1.24-1.66), private insurance compared with no insurance (aRR = 1.43; 95% CI, 1.24-1.63), a college degree vs. not finishing high school (aRR = 1.28; 95% CI, 1.16-1.41), and older age (age 60-64 years vs. 45-50; aRR = 1.57; 95% CI, 1.49-1.66). \u201cGetting people in the door is huge, but for people who have some but not all screenings, 80% of that group did have a wellness visit in the past year,\u201d Spencer said. \u201cWe see that there\u2019s room for improvement.\u201d Women living in rural areas had significantly lower odds of having all screenings completed (aRR = 0.94; 95% CI, 0.89-0.98), as did those who were Asian American or Pacific Islander (aRR = 0.86; 95% CI, 0.76-0.98). \u201cThe barriers that get you from zero to any are maybe more fundamental, and the barriers that<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":2945,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[1],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-2944","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-uncategorized"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/drsoniafawad.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2944","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/drsoniafawad.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/drsoniafawad.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/drsoniafawad.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/drsoniafawad.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=2944"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/drsoniafawad.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2944\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/drsoniafawad.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/media\/2945"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/drsoniafawad.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=2944"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/drsoniafawad.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=2944"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/drsoniafawad.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=2944"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}
![\"hemonc](\"https:\/\/www.healio.com\/~\/media\/h5\/feature\/news\/publogos\/hot.svg?la=en&h=24&w=141&hash=2F86D471C8514C0E334E329AA799E8B4\")
\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n