↓ Skip to main content

United States Health Policies and Late-stage Breast and colorectal cancer diagnosis: Why such disparities by age?

Overview of attention for article published in Health Economics Review, July 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Among the highest-scoring outputs from this source (#37 of 465)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (89th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (84th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
1 news outlet
twitter
4 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
10 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
24 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
United States Health Policies and Late-stage Breast and colorectal cancer diagnosis: Why such disparities by age?
Published in
Health Economics Review, July 2015
DOI 10.1186/s13561-015-0058-2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Lee R Mobley, Tzy-Mey Kuo

Abstract

Colorectal and breast cancers are the second most common causes of cancer deaths in the US. Population cancer screening rates are suboptimal and many cancers are diagnosed at an advanced stage, which results in increased morbidity and mortality. Younger populations are more likely to be diagnosed at a later stage, and this age disparity is not well understood. We examine the associations between late-stage breast cancer (BC) and colorectal cancer (CRC) diagnoses and multilevel factors, focusing on individual state regulations of insurance and health practitioners, and interactions between such policies and age. We expect state-level regulations are significant predictors of the rates of late-stage diagnosis among younger adults. We included adults of all ages, with BC or CRC diagnosed between 2004 -2009, obtained from a newly available cancer population database covering 98 % of all known new cancer cases. We included personal characteristics, linked with a set of county and state-level predictors based on residence. We applied multilevel models to robustly examine differences in risk of late-stage cancer diagnosis across age groups (defined as age 65+ or < 65), focusing specifically on the effects of state regulatory factors and their interactions with age. Late stage BC diagnoses range from 24 %-36 %, while CRC diagnoses range from 54 %-60 % of newly diagnosed BC or CRC cases across states. After controlling statistically for many confounding factors at three levels, age < 65 is the largest person-level predictor for CRC, while black race is the largest predictor for BC. State regulations of health markets exhibit significant interactions with age groups. The state regulatory climate is an important predictor of late-stage BC and CRC diagnoses, especially among people younger than Medicare eligible age (65). State regulations can enhance the climate of access for younger, less well-insured or uninsured persons who fall outside normative screening guidelines.

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 24 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 24 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 4 17%
Student > Master 4 17%
Student > Bachelor 2 8%
Professor 2 8%
Student > Ph. D. Student 2 8%
Other 4 17%
Unknown 6 25%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 6 25%
Nursing and Health Professions 2 8%
Social Sciences 2 8%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 1 4%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 1 4%
Other 4 17%
Unknown 8 33%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 15. 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 07 August 2015.
All research outputs
#2,244,700
of 24,059,832 outputs
Outputs from Health Economics Review
#37
of 465 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#28,822
of 266,656 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Health Economics Review
#3
of 13 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,059,832 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 90th percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 465 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.7. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 92% of its peers.
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 266,656 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 89% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 13 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 84% of its contemporaries.