Skip to main content
Top
Published in: Cancer Causes & Control 5/2015

01-05-2015 | Original paper

Explaining variation across grantees in breast and cervical cancer screening proportions in the NBCCEDP

Authors: Sujha Subramanian, Florence K. L. Tangka, Donatus U. Ekwueme, Justin Trogdon, Wesley Crouse, Janet Royalty

Published in: Cancer Causes & Control | Issue 5/2015

Login to get access

Abstract

Purpose

There is substantial variation across the National Breast and Cervical Cancer Early Detection Program (NBCCEDP) grantees in terms of the proportion of the eligible population served by the grantees each year (hereafter referred to as the screening proportion). In this paper, we assess program- and state-level factors to better understand the reason for this variation in breast and cervical cancer screening proportions across the NBCCEDP grantees.

Methods

We constructed a longitudinal data set, consisting of data from NBCCEDP grantees for each of the three study years (program-years 2006–2007, 2008–2009, and 2009–2010). We performed multivariate analysis to explain the variation in breast and cervical cancer screening proportions across the grantees. The program-level factors studied were the total federal funds received, average cost of screening women by grantee, and the overall organizational structure. The state-level variables included were urban versus rural mix, access to care, and the size of the eligible population.

Results

Of the 48 grantees included in the study, those that serve larger populations, as measured by the size of the population and the percentage of women eligible for services, had lower screening proportions. Higher average cost of service delivery was also associated with lower screening proportions. In addition, grantees whose populations were more concentrated in urban areas had lower screening proportions.

Conclusions

Overall, the average cost of screening, the overall size of the population eligible, and the concentration of population in urban areas all had a negative relationship to the proportion of eligible women screened by NBCCEDP grantees.
Literature
1.
go back to reference Adams EK, Chien LN, Florence CS, Raskind-Hood C (2009). The breast and cervical cancer Adams EK, Chien LN, Florence CS, Raskind-Hood C (2009). The breast and cervical cancer
5.
go back to reference Howard D, Tangka FKL, Royalty J, Dalzell LP, Miller J, O’Hara B, Joseph K, Kenney K, Guy G, Hall IJ (2015) Breast cancer screening of underserved women in the United States: results from the National Breast and Cervical Cancer Early Detection Program, 1998–2012. Cancer Causes Control. doi:10.1007/s10552-015-0553-0 Howard D, Tangka FKL, Royalty J, Dalzell LP, Miller J, O’Hara B, Joseph K, Kenney K, Guy G, Hall IJ (2015) Breast cancer screening of underserved women in the United States: results from the National Breast and Cervical Cancer Early Detection Program, 1998–2012. Cancer Causes Control. doi:10.​1007/​s10552-015-0553-0
6.
go back to reference Tangka FKL, Howard D, Royalty J, Dalzell LP, O’Hara B, Miller J, Sabatino S, Joseph K, Kenney J, Guy G, Hall IJ (2015) Cervical cancer screening of underserved women in the United States: results from the National Breast and Cervical Cancer Early Detection Program, 1997–2012. Cancer Causes Control. doi:10.1007/s10552-015-0524-5 Tangka FKL, Howard D, Royalty J, Dalzell LP, O’Hara B, Miller J, Sabatino S, Joseph K, Kenney J, Guy G, Hall IJ (2015) Cervical cancer screening of underserved women in the United States: results from the National Breast and Cervical Cancer Early Detection Program, 1997–2012. Cancer Causes Control. doi:10.​1007/​s10552-015-0524-5
9.
go back to reference Ekwueme D, Gardner J, Subramanian S, Tangka F, Blackman DK, Richardson LC et al (2008) Cost analysis of the National Breast and Cervical Cancer Early Detection Program (NBCCEDP)—selected states 2003–2004. Cancer 112(3):626–635PubMedCrossRef Ekwueme D, Gardner J, Subramanian S, Tangka F, Blackman DK, Richardson LC et al (2008) Cost analysis of the National Breast and Cervical Cancer Early Detection Program (NBCCEDP)—selected states 2003–2004. Cancer 112(3):626–635PubMedCrossRef
10.
go back to reference Trogdon JG, Ekwueme DU, Subramanian S, Crouse W (2013) Economies of scale in federally-funded state-organized public health programs: results from the National Breast and Cervical Cancer Early Detection Programs. Health Care Manag Sci Trogdon JG, Ekwueme DU, Subramanian S, Crouse W (2013) Economies of scale in federally-funded state-organized public health programs: results from the National Breast and Cervical Cancer Early Detection Programs. Health Care Manag Sci
12.
go back to reference Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) (2006/2008/2010) Behavioral risk factor surveillance system survey data. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, GA Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) (2006/2008/2010) Behavioral risk factor surveillance system survey data. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, GA
13.
go back to reference Bureau of Health Professions, Health Resources and Services Administration, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (2009–2010) Area resource file (ARF). Health Resources and Services Administration, Rockville, MD Bureau of Health Professions, Health Resources and Services Administration, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (2009–2010) Area resource file (ARF). Health Resources and Services Administration, Rockville, MD
15.
go back to reference StataCorp (2011) Stata statistical software: release 12. StataCorp, College Station StataCorp (2011) Stata statistical software: release 12. StataCorp, College Station
16.
go back to reference Subramanian S, Ekwueme D, Gardner J, Kramer C, Bapat BS, Tangka F (2008) Identifying and controlling for program level differences in cost-effectiveness comparisons: lessons from the Evaluation of the National Breast and Cervical Cancer Screening Program (NBCCEDP). Eval Program Plan 31(2):136–144CrossRef Subramanian S, Ekwueme D, Gardner J, Kramer C, Bapat BS, Tangka F (2008) Identifying and controlling for program level differences in cost-effectiveness comparisons: lessons from the Evaluation of the National Breast and Cervical Cancer Screening Program (NBCCEDP). Eval Program Plan 31(2):136–144CrossRef
Metadata
Title
Explaining variation across grantees in breast and cervical cancer screening proportions in the NBCCEDP
Authors
Sujha Subramanian
Florence K. L. Tangka
Donatus U. Ekwueme
Justin Trogdon
Wesley Crouse
Janet Royalty
Publication date
01-05-2015
Publisher
Springer International Publishing
Published in
Cancer Causes & Control / Issue 5/2015
Print ISSN: 0957-5243
Electronic ISSN: 1573-7225
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10552-015-0569-5

Other articles of this Issue 5/2015

Cancer Causes & Control 5/2015 Go to the issue
Webinar | 19-02-2024 | 17:30 (CET)

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on antibody–drug conjugates in cancer

Antibody–drug conjugates (ADCs) are novel agents that have shown promise across multiple tumor types. Explore the current landscape of ADCs in breast and lung cancer with our experts, and gain insights into the mechanism of action, key clinical trials data, existing challenges, and future directions.

Dr. Véronique Diéras
Prof. Fabrice Barlesi
Developed by: Springer Medicine