↓ Skip to main content

Macro-level factors impacting geographic disparities in cancer screening

Overview of attention for article published in Health Economics Review, August 2014
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
4 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
6 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
29 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Macro-level factors impacting geographic disparities in cancer screening
Published in
Health Economics Review, August 2014
DOI 10.1186/s13561-014-0013-7
Pubmed ID
Authors

Lee R Mobley, Tzy-Mey Kuo, Jeffrey Traczynski, Victoria Udalova, HE Frech

Abstract

Examine how differences in state regulatory environments predict geographic disparities in the utilization of cancer screening. 100% Medicare fee-for-service population data from 2001-2005 was developed as multi-year breast (BC) and colorectal cancer (CRC) screening utilization rates in each county in the US. A comprehensive set of supply and demand predictors are used in a multilevel model of county-level cancer screening utilization in the context of state regulatory markets. States dictate insurance mandates/regulations and whether alternative providers (nurse practitioners) can provide preventive care services supplied by MDs. Controlling statistically for the supply of both types of providers, we study the joint effects of two private insurance regulations: one mandating that insureds with serious or chronic health conditions may receive continuity of care from their established physician(s) after changing health insurance plans, and another mandating that external grievance review is an option for all health plan coverage/denial decisions. These private insurance plan regulations are expected to affect the degree of beneficial spillovers from managed care practices, which may have increased area-wide cancer screening rates. The two private insurance regulations under study were significant predictors impacted by local market conditions. Managed care spillovers in local markets were significantly associated with higher BC screening rates, but only in states lacking the two forms of regulation under study. Spillovers were significantly associated with higher CRC cancer screening rates everywhere, but much higher in the unregulated states. Area poverty dampened screening rates, but less so for CRC screening in the states with these regulations. Two state insurance regulations that empowered consumers with more autonomy to make informed utilization decisions varied across states, and exhibited significant associations with screening rates, which varied with the degree of managed care penetration or poverty in the state's counties. Beneficial spillover effects from managed care practices and negative influences from area poverty are not uniform across the United States. Both variables had stronger associations with CRC than BC screening utilization, as did state regulatory variables. CRC screening by endoscopy was more subject to market and regulatory factors than BC screening.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 29 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 1 3%
United States 1 3%
India 1 3%
South Africa 1 3%
Unknown 25 86%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 7 24%
Student > Master 6 21%
Student > Ph. D. Student 4 14%
Librarian 2 7%
Other 2 7%
Other 2 7%
Unknown 6 21%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 5 17%
Nursing and Health Professions 4 14%
Social Sciences 4 14%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 2 7%
Business, Management and Accounting 1 3%
Other 2 7%
Unknown 11 38%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 04 February 2015.
All research outputs
#13,917,976
of 22,760,687 outputs
Outputs from Health Economics Review
#197
of 426 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#117,741
of 235,611 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Health Economics Review
#7
of 10 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,760,687 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 37th percentile – i.e., 37% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 426 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.8. This one is in the 49th percentile – i.e., 49% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 235,611 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 48th percentile – i.e., 48% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 10 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than 3 of them.