|
Barriers to screening mammography in poor, rural areas are marked by significant racial disparities, according to a study to be published in the December 1 issue of the journal Cancer.
Currently, about 40 percent of eligible women are screened for breast screening cancer, far less than the national goal of 80 percent. Women in rural America, particularly from minority groups, have even lower utilization rates, the study found.
The reasons for such poor screening rates among minority rural women, according to the researchers, are poor knowledge about breast cancer and screening, difficulty accessing facilities and lack of encouragement and funds to get screened.
In 1996 a program designed to increase screening among low-income women called the Robeson County Outreach Screening and Education (ROSE) Project began in North Carolina. This community-based education project targeted Caucasian, African-American and Native American women over 40 years old.
In the study, Electra D. Paskett, Ph.D., of Ohio State University, and her colleagues characterized and compared the knowledge, beliefs and behaviors about breast cancer screening among 897 women enrolled in this project.
The researchers found African-American women and, to a significantly greater extent, Native American women had less information and more inaccurate beliefs about screening compared to Caucasian women.
For example, 43 percent of African-American and Native American women did not identify mammogram as a breast cancer screening test, compared to 70 percent of Caucasian women.
Overall, pain, embarrassment and lack of time were major reasons for minority women in rural areas to not be screened for breast cancer, while lack of knowledge about testing options and recommendations or risk factors further promoted poor utilization, according to the researchers.
The researchers concluded that a need exists for interventions among minority rural women to change beliefs, reduce barriers and improve knowledge in order to improve adherence to screening guidelines.
Source: Medical Week staff, week of October 30, 2004

|