Examining Racial Disparities in Colorectal Cancer Screening and the Role of Online Medical Record Use: Findings From a Cross-Sectional Study of a National Survey
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Background: Colorectal cancer (CRC) is the second leading cause of cancer-related deaths in the United States. Early detection via routine CRC screening can significantly lower risks for CRC-specific morbidity and mortality. Public health initiatives between 2000 and 2015 nearly doubled CRC screening rates for some US adults. However, screening rates remain lowest for adults aged 45-49 years (20%), patients of safety net health care facilities (42%), adults without insurance (44%), and other subgroups compared with national averages (72%). Given the evolving landscape of digital health care and trends in web-based health information-seeking behaviors, leveraging online medical record (OMR) systems may be an underutilized resource to promote CRC screening utilization. Recognizing trends in OMR usage and patient demographics may enhance digital inclusion-a key social determinant of health-and support equitable web-based interventions aimed at boosting CRC screening across diverse populations. Objective: This study examined the association of accessing an OMR with CRC screening utilization and corresponding sociodemographic characteristics of US adults. Methods: In 2023, we conducted a secondary data analysis using a pooled, weighted sample from Health Information National Trends Survey (HINTS) 5 cycles, 2, 3, and 4 (2018-2020), a nationally representative survey assessing how US adults access and use health-related information. We analyzed the association between sociodemographic characteristics, medical conditions, OMR access, and CRC screening behaviors via logistic regression. Results: The sample included adults aged 45-75 years (N=5143). The mean age was 59 (SD 8) years for those who reported CRC screening and 52 (SD 6) years for those never screened. Nearly 70% (4029/5143) of participants reported CRC screening and 52% (2707/5143) reported OMR access in the past year. Adjusted odds of CRC screening were higher among non-Hispanic African American or Black adults than among non-Hispanic White adults (odds ratio [OR] 1.76, 95% CI 1.22-2.53), adults who accessed an OMR (OR 1.89, 95% CI 1.45-2.46), older individuals (OR 1.18, 95% CI 1.16-1.21), the insured (OR 3.69, 95% CI 2.34-5.82), and those with a professional or graduate degree versus those with a high school diploma or less (OR 2.65, 95% CI 1.28-5.47). Individuals aged 65-75 years were significantly more likely (P<.001) to be screened (1687/1831, 91%) than those aged 45-49 years (190/610, 29%). Conclusions: Promoting OMR access, especially among the most disadvantaged Americans, may assist in reaching national screening goals. Emphasis should be placed on the mutability of OMR use compared with most other statistically significant associations with CRC screening behaviors. OMR access provides an intervenable means of promoting CRC education and screening, especially among those facing structural barriers to cancer diagnoses and care. Future research should focus on tailored and accessible interventions that expand OMR access, particularly for younger populations.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».