Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

  • Original Article
  • Published:

Clinical Research

Health disparities in clinical practice patterns for prostate cancer screening by geographic regions in the United States: a multilevel modeling analysis

Prostate Cancer and Prostatic Diseases volume 16, pages 193–203 (2013)Cite this article

Subjects

Abstract

Background:

To our knowledge, no previous study has examined state-level geographic variability and its predictors in clinical practice patterns to screen for prostate cancer in the United States.

Methods:

We used the Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System 2010 data set to analyze geographic variability (by state) and its associated predictors in receiving a PSA test and/or a digital rectal examination (DRE). The study population consisted of men aged ⩾50 years who responded as yes/no when asked about having a PSA test or DRE performed during the last year. We build two multilevel logistic regression models, differing in dependent variables, that is, (1) any prostate cancer screening (PCS) (either PSA and/or DRE), and (2) PCS based on PSA testing (PSAT). Individual characteristics (age, education, employment, marriage, income, race/ethnicity, self-reported health status, obesity, alcohol consumption, smoking status, personal physician presence, and health insurance coverage) were treated as level-1 variables and state characteristics (number of doctors per 100 000 persons per state, US regions and metropolitan statistical area (MSA) codes) were treated as level-2 variables.

Results:

We found significant geographic variability in receiving PCS and PSAT screening in the United States. For PCS, MSA code was an independent predictor, with men living in urban areas having lower odds of screening (odds ratio (OR)=0.8, 95% confidence interval (CI)=0.7–0.9). In PSAT, the number of doctors per 100 000 persons per state was an independent predictor, with lowest quartile states (0–25% quartile) having lower odds of PSA-based screening (OR=0.78, 95% CI=063–0.94). In both models, all level-1 variables were independent predictors (P<0.05) of PCS, except self-reported health status.

Conclusions:

Men living in urban areas and states with lower prevalence of doctors have lower odds of screening for prostate cancer and PSAT, respectively, after adjusting for individual variables. Future studies should examine the reasons for these health disparities.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution

Access options

Buy this article

  • Purchase on Springer Link
  • Instant access to full article PDF
Buy now

Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout

Figure 1

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Siegel R, Naishadham D, Jemal A . Cancer statistics, 2012. CA: Cancer J Clin 2012; 62: 10–29.

    Google Scholar 

  2. Howlader N, Noone A, Krapcho M, Neyman N, Aminou R, Waldron W et al(eds) SEER Cancer Statistics Review, 1975–2008. National Cancer Institute: Bethesda, MD, http://seer.cancer.gov/csr/1975_2008/ 2011.

    Google Scholar 

  3. American Cancer Society. What are the key statistics about prostate cancer? Atlanta, GA, 2012.

  4. Roehrborn CG, Black LK . The economic burden of prostate cancer. BJU Int 2011; 108: 806–813.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. American Urological Association. AUA Disputes Panel’s Recommendations on Prostate Cancer Screening, In: Lacy SS (ed). http://www.auanet.org/content/media/USPSTF_AUA_Response.pdf Linthicum, MD, 2012.

    Google Scholar 

  6. Chou R, Croswell JM, Dana T, Bougatsos C, Blazina I, Fu R et al. Screening for prostate cancer: a review of the evidence for the US Preventive Services Task Force. Ann Intern Med 2011; 155: 762–771.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Moyer VA . Screening for prostate cancer: U.S. preventive services task force recommendation statement. Ann Intern Med 2012; 157: 120–134.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Andriole GL, Crawford ED, Grubb RL, Buys SS, Chia D, Church TR et al. Prostate cancer screening in the randomized prostate, lung, colorectal, and ovarian cancer screening trial: mortality results after 13 years of follow-up. J Natl Cancer Inst 2012; 104: 125–132.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Schröder FH, Hugosson J, Roobol MJ, Tammela TLJ, Ciatto S, Nelen V et al. Prostate-cancer mortality at 11 years of follow-up. N Engl J Med 2012; 366: 981–990.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Sirovich BE, Schwartz LM, Woloshin S . Screening men for prostate and colorectal cancer in the United States. JAMA 2003; 289: 1414–1420.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Chan ECY, Barry MJ, Vernon SW, Ahn C . Brief report: physicians and their personal prostate cancer-screening practices with prostate-specific antigen. J Gen Intern Med 2006; 21: 257–259.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Schootman M, Jeffe DB, Baker EA, Walker MS . Effect of area poverty rate on cancer screening across US communities. J Epidemiol Community Health 2006; 60: 202–207.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Lian M, Schootman M, Yun S . Geographic variation and effect of area-level poverty rate on colorectal cancer screening. BMC Public Health 2008; 8: 358.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Semrad TJ, Tancredi DJ, Baldwin LM, Green P, Fenton JJ . Geographic variation of racial/ethnic disparities in colorectal cancer testing among medicare enrollees. Cancer 2011; 117: 1755–1763.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Hox JJ . Multilevel analysis: Techniques and applications. Taylor & Francis: Mahwah, NJ, 2010.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  16. Centers for Disease C. Behavioral Risk Factors Surveillance System Website. Atlanta, GA 2010.

  17. Nelson DE, Powell-Griner E, Town M, Kovar MG . A comparison of national estimates from the National Health Interview Survey and the Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System. Am J Public Health 2003; 93: 1335–1341.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Nelson DE, Holtzman D, Bolen J, Stanwyck CA, Mack KA . Reliability and validity of measures from the Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System (BRFSS). Soz Praventivmed 2001; 46 (Suppl 1): S3–42.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Stein AD, Lederman RI, Shea S . The Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System questionnaire: its reliability in a statewide sample. Am J Public Health 1993; 83: 1768–1772.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  20. Wolf A, Wender RC, Etzioni RB, Thompson IM, D'Amico AV, Volk RJ et al. American Cancer Society guideline for the early detection of prostate cancer: update 2010. CA Cancer J Clin 2010; 60: 70–98.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Vadaparampil ST, Jacobsen PB, Kash K, Watson IS, Saloup R, Pow-Sang J . Factors predicting prostate specific antigen testing among first-degree relatives of prostate cancer patients. Cancer Epidem Biomarker Prev 2004; 13: 753–758.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  22. Seo HS, Lee NK . Predictors of PSA screening among men over 40 years of age who had ever heard about PSA. Kor J Urol 2010; 51: 391–397.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Chiu BCH, Anderson JR, Corbin D . Predictors of prostate cancer screening among health fair participants. Public Health 2005; 119: 686–693.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  24. Austin OJ, Valente S, Hasse LA, Kues JR . Determinants of prostate-specific antigen test use in prostate cancer screening by primary care physicians. Arch Fam Med 1997; 6: 453–458.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  25. Nelson TF, Naimi TS, Brewer RD, Wechsler H . The state sets the rate: the relationship among state-specific college binge drinking, state binge drinking rates, and selected state alcohol control policies. Am J Public Health 2005; 95: 441–446.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. U.S. Census Bureau . 2007 Economic Census: Regions and Divisons 2007.

  27. US Department of Commerce. State Rankings -- Statistical Abstract of the United States: Doctors per 100,000 resident population 2007.

  28. US Department of Health and Human Services. Area Resource Files 2012.

  29. Merlo J, Yang M, Chaix B, Lynch J, Råstam L . A brief conceptual tutorial on multilevel analysis in social epidemiology: investigating contextual phenomena in different groups of people. J Epidemiol Community Health 2005; 59: 729–736.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Goldstein H . Multilevel statistical models vol. 847. John Wiley & Sons Inc: London, 2010.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  31. Rasbash J Modelling UoLCfM. A user's guide to MLwiN. University of London, Institute of Education, Centre for Multilevel Modelling: London, 2000.

  32. Snijders TAB, Bosker RJ . Multilevel Analysis: An Introduction To Basic And Advanced Multilevel Modeling. SAGE publications Ltd: Thousand Oaks, CA, 1999.

    Google Scholar 

  33. Merlo J, Chaix B, Ohlsson H, Beckman A, Johnell K, Hjerpe P et al. A brief conceptual tutorial of multilevel analysis in social epidemiology: using measures of clustering in multilevel logistic regression to investigate contextual phenomena. J Epidemiol Community Health 2006; 60: 290–297.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Office of Surveillance Epidemiology and Laboratory Services. Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System 2010. Summary Data Quality Report Centers for Disease Control and Prevention: Atlanta, GA 2010.

  35. Andersen RM . Revisiting the behavioral model and access to medical care: does it matter? J Health Soc Behav 1995; 36: 1–10.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  36. Scheppers E, Van Dongen E, Dekker J, Geertzen J . Potential barriers to the use of health services among ethnic minorities: a review. Fam Pract 2006; 23: 325–348.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Osterberg L, Blaschke T . Adherence to medication. N Engl J Med 2005; 353: 487–497.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  38. Chou R, Croswell JM . Screening for prostate cancer. Ann Intern Med 2012; 156: 540.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. American Cancer S. Can prostate cancer be found early? Atlanta, GA 2010.

  40. Li X, Sundquist K, Sundquist J . Neighborhood deprivation and prostate cancer mortality: a multilevel analysis from Sweden. Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis 2012; 15: 128–134.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  41. Xiao H, Gwede CK, Kiros G, Milla K . Analysis of prostate cancer incidence using geographic information system and multilevel modeling. J Natl Med Assoc 2007; 99: 218.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  42. Nambudiri VE, Landrum MB, Lamont EB, McNeil BJ, Bozeman SR, Freedland SJ et al. Understanding variation in primary prostate cancer treatment within the veterans health administration. Urology 2012; 79: 537–545.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Pharmacy Practice & Administrative Sciences, College of Pharmacy, University of New Mexico, Albuquerque, NM, USA

    V Garg & D W Raisch

  2. College of Education, University of New Mexico, Albuquerque, NM, USA

    J P Selig

  3. Department of Pharmaceutical Sciences, College of Pharmacy, University of New Mexico, Albuquerque, NM, USA

    T A Thompson

Authors
  1. V Garg
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. D W Raisch
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. J P Selig
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. T A Thompson
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to D W Raisch.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Appendix

Appendix

Appendix 1 BRFSS 2010 response rates by state.
Full size table
Appendix 2(A) Geographic distribution of men by state for any prostate cancer screening (PCS).*
Full size table
Appendix 2 (B) Geographic distribution of men by state for screening that included PSA testing (PSAT).*
Full size table

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Garg, V., Raisch, D., Selig, J. et al. Health disparities in clinical practice patterns for prostate cancer screening by geographic regions in the United States: a multilevel modeling analysis. Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis 16, 193–203 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1038/pcan.2013.3

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/pcan.2013.3

Keywords

Search

Advanced search

Quick links