We have located links that may give you full text access.
Utilisation of cancer screening services by disabled women in Chile.
PloS One 2017
BACKGROUND: Research has shown that women with disabilities face additional challenges in accessing and using healthcare services compared to non-disabled women. However, relatively little is known about the utilisation of cancer screening services for women with disabilities. This study addresses this gap by examining the utilisation of the Papanicolaou test and mammography for disabled women in Chile.
METHODS: We used cross-sectional data, taken from a 2015 nationally-representative survey. Initially, we employed logistic regressions to test for differences in utilisation rates for the Papanicolaou test (66,281 observations) and the mammogram (35,294 observations) between disabled and non-disabled women. Next, logistic regressions were used to investigate the demographic, socioeconomic, and health-related factors affecting utilisation rates for cancer screening services for disabled women (sample sizes: 5,823 observations for the Papanicolaou test and 5,731 observations for the mammogram).
RESULTS: Disabled women were less likely to undergo screening tests than non-disabled women. For the Papanicolaou test and mammography, the multivariable regression models showed that living in rural areas, having higher education, being affiliated with a private health insurance company, giving a good health self-assessment score, and being under medical treatment for other illnesses were associated with higher utilisation rates. On the other hand, being single, inactive with regard to employment, and having a better income were linked with lower utilisation. While utilisation rates for both disabled and non-disabled women have increased since 2006, the utilisation disparity has slightly increased.
CONCLUSIONS: This study shows the influence of various factors in the utilisation rates of preventive cancer screening services for disabled women. To develop effective initiatives targeting inequalities in the utilisation of cancer screening tests, it is important to move beyond an exclusively single-disease approach and acknowledge the complexity of the patient population.
METHODS: We used cross-sectional data, taken from a 2015 nationally-representative survey. Initially, we employed logistic regressions to test for differences in utilisation rates for the Papanicolaou test (66,281 observations) and the mammogram (35,294 observations) between disabled and non-disabled women. Next, logistic regressions were used to investigate the demographic, socioeconomic, and health-related factors affecting utilisation rates for cancer screening services for disabled women (sample sizes: 5,823 observations for the Papanicolaou test and 5,731 observations for the mammogram).
RESULTS: Disabled women were less likely to undergo screening tests than non-disabled women. For the Papanicolaou test and mammography, the multivariable regression models showed that living in rural areas, having higher education, being affiliated with a private health insurance company, giving a good health self-assessment score, and being under medical treatment for other illnesses were associated with higher utilisation rates. On the other hand, being single, inactive with regard to employment, and having a better income were linked with lower utilisation. While utilisation rates for both disabled and non-disabled women have increased since 2006, the utilisation disparity has slightly increased.
CONCLUSIONS: This study shows the influence of various factors in the utilisation rates of preventive cancer screening services for disabled women. To develop effective initiatives targeting inequalities in the utilisation of cancer screening tests, it is important to move beyond an exclusively single-disease approach and acknowledge the complexity of the patient population.
Full text links
Related Resources
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app
All material on this website is protected by copyright, Copyright © 1994-2024 by WebMD LLC.
This website also contains material copyrighted by 3rd parties.
By using this service, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy.
Your Privacy Choices
You can now claim free CME credits for this literature searchClaim now
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app