-
- Madeline C Rutan, Jesse D Sammon, David-Dan Nguyen, Kerry L Kilbridge, Peter Herzog, and Quoc-Dien Trinh.
- Division of Urology, Maine Medical Center, Portland, Maine; Center for Outcomes Research and Evaluation, Maine Medical Center, Portland, Maine; Tufts University School of Medicine, Boston, Massachusetts.
- Am J Prev Med. 2021 Feb 1; 60 (2): e69-e72.
IntroductionHealth literacy affects how patients behave within the healthcare system. Overutilization of screening procedures inconsistent with the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force guidelines contributes to the high cost of health care. The authors hypothesize that higher health literacy supports guideline-concordant screening. This study assesses the effect of health literacy on nonrecommended prostate, breast, and cervical cancer screening in patients older than the recommended screening age limit.MethodsThe 2016 Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System included health literacy modules. Respondents self-reported their ability to obtain and understand health information, resulting in 4 health literacy rankings. The authors calculated the population-weighted proportion of respondents in each health literacy category who underwent screening past the Task Force‒recommended age limit. The ORs of nonrecommended screening for each malignancy were calculated, with low health literacy as the ref category.ResultsIndividuals with higher health literacy underwent more nonrecommended screening. Nonrecommended prostate cancer screening was performed in 27.4% (95% CI=23.7%, 31.4%) and 47.7% (95% CI=44.1%, 51.3%) of respondents with low and high health literacy, respectively (p<0.001). Nonrecommended breast cancer screening was performed in 46.8% (95% CI=42.6%, 51.1%) and 67.7% (95% CI=64.2%, 71.1%) of respondents with low and high health literacy, respectively (p=0.002). Nonrecommended cervical cancer screening was performed in 33.8% (95% CI=31.1%, 36.5%) and 48.4% (95% CI=46.3%, 50.5%) of respondents with low and high health literacy, respectively (p<0.001). Individuals with high health literacy were significantly more likely than those with low health literacy to screen against the recommendations for prostate (OR=1.73, 95% CI=1.34, 2.23, p<0.001), cervical (OR=1.533, 95% CI=1.31, 1.80, p<0.001), and breast (OR=8.213, 95% CI=4.90, 13.76, p<0.001) cancer.ConclusionsHigher health literacy correlates with increased rates of screening beyond the recommended age, contrary to the study hypothesis. Breast cancer demonstrated the highest rates of nonrecommended screening.Copyright © 2020 American Journal of Preventive Medicine. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
Notes
Knowledge, pearl, summary or comment to share?You can also include formatting, links, images and footnotes in your notes
- Simple formatting can be added to notes, such as
*italics*
,_underline_
or**bold**
. - Superscript can be denoted by
<sup>text</sup>
and subscript<sub>text</sub>
. - Numbered or bulleted lists can be created using either numbered lines
1. 2. 3.
, hyphens-
or asterisks*
. - Links can be included with:
[my link to pubmed](http://pubmed.com)
- Images can be included with:
![alt text](https://bestmedicaljournal.com/study_graph.jpg "Image Title Text")
- For footnotes use
[^1](This is a footnote.)
inline. - Or use an inline reference
[^1]
to refer to a longer footnote elseweher in the document[^1]: This is a long footnote.
.