The number of people in the United States aged 65 years and older is increasing. Older people have a higher risk of dying from cancer; however, recent information about breast and colorectal cancer screening rates among women aged 65 years and older and about sources of health information consulted by these women is limited.
We examined data from the Health Information National Trends Survey for women aged 65 years and older who had no personal history of breast or colorectal cancer. Women whose self-reported race and ethnicity was non-Hispanic white, non-Hispanic black, or Hispanic were included in the analysis. The overall response rate for the 2003 survey was 34.5%.
Women aged 75 years and older had lower rates of recent mammography (mammogram in previous 2 years) than did women aged 65 to 74 years. In both age groups, rates were especially low for Hispanic women and women with a household income of less than $15,000 per year. Rates of recent colorectal cancer screening (fecal occult blood test in previous year or endoscopy in previous 5 years) were markedly lower for non-Hispanic black women aged 75 years and older than for other women in this age group, and for Hispanic women aged 65 to 74 years than for non-Hispanic women in this age group. Screening rates were lowest for women with an annual household income of less than $15,000, no family history of cancer, no usual health care provider, or 1 or no provider visits in the previous year.
Differences were found in the groups' preferred channel for receiving health information. Women who had had a mammogram in the previous 2 years were more likely to pay attention to health information on the radio or in newspapers and magazines than were women who had not received a recent mammogram. Women who had had a recent colorectal cancer screening test were more likely to pay attention to health information in magazines or on the Internet than were those who had not. Personalized print and other publications were the most preferred channel for receiving health information.
The results from this analysis suggest that educational materials about routine breast and colorectal cancer screening appropriate for women aged 65 years and older (especially low-income women, Hispanic women, and those aged 65 to 74 years) may be helpful.
People in the oldest age groups are of interest in cancer prevention and control because their numbers are increasing in the general U.S. population and older people have a higher risk of dying from cancer (
Nevertheless, medical and scientific authorities continue to debate the value of routine cancer screening for women in the oldest age categories. According to screening guidelines from the United States Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF), the evidence that supports screening mammography every 1 to 2 years for women aged 40 years and older is generalizable to women aged 70 years and older if their life expectancy is not compromised by comorbid disease (
According to USPSTF guidelines for routine colorectal cancer screening among people aged 50 years and older, the age at which colorectal cancer screening should be discontinued is not known (
Little is known about older women's preferred channels and methods for seeking health information and how these relate to cancer screening practices (
If lack of knowledge about screening recommendations accounts in part for lower screening rates among subgroups of older women (
To learn more about cancer screening practices and the use of medical information among older women, we analyzed data from the Health Information National Trends Survey (HINTS). Our objectives were to examine 1) breast and colorectal cancer screening practices among women aged 65 years and older, and 2) the sources of health information on cancer screening practices that these women sought. The research question tested in this study was whether older women who followed breast or colorectal cancer screening recommendations preferred different sources of health information from those who did not.
We obtained data from 3848 women who were interviewed from October 2002 through April 2003 as part of HINTS (
Our study sample was drawn from women aged 65 years and older who responded to the HINTS survey (n = 822 of 3848 female respondents of all ages). Of these, women whose self-reported race and ethnicity was non-Hispanic white, non-Hispanic black, or Hispanic were included in the analysis. We further refined the sample by excluding non-Hispanic women who reported that their race was neither white nor black (n = 24) because the numbers were too small for separate analysis, women whose race and ethnicity were reported as missing (n = 45), and women who had a personal history of breast or colorectal cancer (n = 78), leaving a study sample of 675 women.
The HINTS interview included questions about self-reported health status, demographic and socioeconomic characteristics, screening mammography, fecal occult blood testing (FOBT), and endoscopy. Each respondent was asked whether she had ever had a mammogram; participants who responded positively were then asked when they had received their last mammogram. Similar questions were asked about FOBT and endoscopy.
Other variables examined in the analysis related to media exposure and information seeking (e.g., hours of television or radio attended to per week, days respondents read newspapers or magazines in the previous week), attention paid to information about health or medical topics, whether or not respondents had looked for cancer information, where respondents had looked for cancer information, how much respondents relied on various channels of information, and Internet usage. Personalized print material was defined as reading material targeting specific lifestyles and family histories.
We analyzed data with SUDAAN, Version 9.1 (SAS Institute, Inc., Cary, NC), to account for the complex sampling of HINTS and its sampling weights, which were used in calculating population estimates and 95% confidence intervals (CIs). The age groups of interest were women aged 65 to 74 years and those aged 75 years and older. We used the chi-square test of independence to determine the association between adherence to screening and the covariates of media exposure and preferred channels of health information. Multivariate logistic analyses were performed to determine the effects of demographic and health coverage covariates on adherence to screening. We used pair-wise comparisons to test for significant differences between categories within each covariate.
About 85.0% of the women in our analysis were non-Hispanic white, 9.0% were non-Hispanic black, and 6.1% were Hispanic (
Data on the use of breast and colorectal cancer screening tests (
Rates of recent mammography varied by age group, health history, and other demographic and socioeconomic factors (
We also carried out a multivariate logistic analysis to see whether the associations between having a recent mammogram, income level, and having a usual health provider are confounded by having health insurance (data not shown). In a model for recent mammogram, which included age (65–74 vs 75–95 years), household income (<$15,000 vs ≥$15,000, or refused/don't know/missing), and usual provider, three variables — older age, lower income, and lack of a usual provider — were inversely associated with recent mammography (
Rates of colorectal cancer screening varied by age group and other demographic factors, socioeconomic factors, and health history (
In a multivariate model for colorectal cancer screening, the variables included age, education, household income, health care insurance, and a usual provider. Only lower educational attainment, lack of health insurance, and lack of a usual provider were significantly and inversely associated with colorectal cancer screening (
Data on media exposure indicate that television was the most common source of medical information for women in our analysis, regardless of whether they had recently had a mammogram or colorectal screening test (
Differences were also found between the groups' preferred channel for receiving health information (
The results from this analysis of national survey data confirm and expand on results from prior studies of the use of cancer screening tests among older women (
Culturally sensitive and appropriate educational materials about the value of screening mammography and colorectal cancer screening in reducing mortality from breast and colorectal cancer and about the potential benefits and harms of cancer screening may be helpful for older women, including low-income or minority women. Such materials should be available in both English and Spanish and should be modified to be relevant for older women from different ethnic and racial backgrounds. Educational materials should also be available for people with different levels of health literacy. Almost 29% of the women in our analysis reported having less than a high school education. Given that most health and medical information available to the public is written at a reading level higher than that of the average adult, this population may face challenges in accessing and understanding available printed health information (
Our finding that older women pay more attention to information disseminated on television and newspapers than through radio and the Internet is consistent with research suggesting that the Internet may not be the most efficient means for providing educational materials to older women (
Limitations of the present analysis include the cross-sectional design of the HINTS survey and the reliance on self-reported information about cancer screening and other variables. Questions for assessing cancer-related information on the HINTS questionnaire were, however, well-established and could be answered reliably and accurately by the adult population (
Lack of knowledge about screening recommendations may partly account for lower screening rates among subgroups of older women. Our findings, therefore, that older women who adhere to breast or colorectal cancer screening recommendations and those who do not adhere to them prefer different sources of health information may help improve the health of women in this age group. Interventions designed to convey the potential benefits and risks of cancer screening to this group may benefit from knowledge of the sources of medical information used by older women and the channels of information preferred by them.
Demographic Characteristics and Health History Among U.S. Women Aged 65 Years and Older With No History of Breast or Colorectal Cancer (N = 675), Health Information National Trend Survey, 2003
| Characteristics | Sample Size | Pop. Est., % (95% CI) |
|---|---|---|
| 65-74 | 368 | 58.3 (54.1-62.3) |
| 75-95 | 307 | 41.7 (37.7-45.9) |
| Non-Hispanic white | 568 | 85.0 (82.3-87.3) |
| Non-Hispanic black | 60 | 9.0 (7.1-11.2) |
| Hispanic | 47 | 6.1 (4.3-8.5) |
| <$15,000 | 118 | 16.9 (14.0-20.4) |
| $15,000-<$25,000 | 177 | 29.3 (25.1-33.9) |
| ≥$25,000 | 241 | 33.7 (29.7-37.9) |
| Refused/NA/DK/missing | 139 | 20.1 (17.0-23.6) |
| <High school graduate | 128 | 28.5 (25.7-31.5) |
| High school graduate | 241 | 40.2 (38.0-42.3) |
| Some college | 171 | 18.1 (16.3-20.0) |
| College graduate | 133 | 13.2 (12.2-14.3) |
| Married/unmarried couple | 232 | 47.2 (43.1-51.3) |
| Divorced/separated | 82 | 9.6 (7.2-12.6) |
| Widowed | 337 | 40.8 (36.5-45.2) |
| Never married | 22 | 2.4 (1.4-4.1) |
| Yes | 454 | 69.7 (65.6-73.5) |
| No | 216 | 30.3 (26.5-34.4) |
| Excellent/very good | 280 | 38.4 (34.5-42.5) |
| Good | 224 | 35.3 (30.9-39.9) |
| Fair/poor | 170 | 26.3 (22.3-30.7) |
| Yes | 575 | 85.9 (82.5-88.7) |
| No | 97 | 14.1 (11.3-17.5) |
| ≤1 | 120 | 17.1 (14.2-20.4) |
| 2-4 | 301 | 44.9 (40.1-49.9) |
| ≥5 | 244 | 37.9 (33.6-42.4) |
CI indicates confidence interval; ref, refused; NA, not available; DK, don't know.
Numbers may not equal 675 because respondents with "don't know" responses, refusals, or missing information were excluded.
Screening Test Use by U.S. Women Aged 65 Years and Older With No History of Breast or Colorectal Cancer (N = 675), Health Information National Trend Survey, 2003
| Screening Characteristic | Total Sample Size | Adherence | Pop. Est., % (95% CI) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Ever had mammogram | 673 | 608 | 89.4 (85.5-92.4) |
| Mammogram within previous 2 years | 669 | 528 | 78.8 (74.5-82.5) |
| Ever had fecal occult blood test (FOBT) | 672 | 377 | 53.8 (48.9-58.6) |
| FOBT within previous year | 662 | 166 | 23.6 (19.9-27.6) |
| Ever had sigmoidoscopy | 655 | 194 | 26.2 (22.7-30.0) |
| Ever had colonoscopy | 664 | 275 | 41.0 (36.3-45.9) |
| Sigmoidoscopy or colonoscopy within previous 5 years | 661 | 272 | 38.8 (34.3-43.5) |
| FOBT in previous year or endoscopy in previous 5 years | 660 | 350 | 51.6 (46.6-56.6) |
CI indicates confidence interval.
Numbers do not equal 675 because respondents with "don't know" responses, refusals, or missing information were excluded.
Adherence is defined as mammography screening within previous 2 years, fecal occult blood test within previous year, or sigmoidoscopy or colonoscopy screening within previous 5 years.
Recent
| Characteristic | Age group 65-74 years | Age group ≥75 years | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Total Sample Size | Pop. Est., % | Total Sample Size | Pop. Est., % | |
| Total | 367 | 83.0 (77.7-87.3) | 302 | 72.8 (66.0-78.7) |
| Non-Hispanic white | 298 | 83.1 (77.2-87.7) | 265 | 72.5 (65.6-78.5) |
| Non-Hispanic black | 38 | 94.2 (78.9-98.6) | 21 | 84.5 (54.2-96.2) |
| Hispanic | 31 | 66.4 (37.0-87.0) | 16 | 58.6 (24.1-86.3) |
| <$15,000 | 52 | 55.9 (35.3-74.6) | 66 | 63.9 (47.5-77.6) |
| $15,000-<$25,000 | 95 | 81.8 (70.0-89.6) | 82 | 73.8 (61.1-83.4) |
| ≥$25,000 | 151 | 93.7 (88.6-96.7) | 90 | 74.8 (62.4-84.1) |
| Ref/NA/DK/missing | 69 | 81.5 (67.5-90.3) | 64 | 78.5 (61.9-89.2) |
| <High school graduate | 59 | 72.2 (55.0-84.6) | 68 | 69.6 (54.8-81.2) |
| High school graduate | 141 | 87.0 (80.1-91.8) | 99 | 70.3 (58.3-80.0) |
| Some college | 91 | 85.8 (76.3-91.9) | 78 | 79.0 (69.2-86.3) |
| College graduate | 76 | 86.0 (73.0-93.3) | 55 | 78.2 (60.8-89.2) |
| Married/unmarried couple | 165 | 88.4 (79.7-93.6) | 66 | 79.8 (65.7-89.1) |
| Divorced/separated | 63 | 67.9 (45.6-84.2) | 19 | 66.8 (21.5-93.6) |
| Widowed | 126 | 79.7 (69.4-87.1) | 206 | 69.9 (61.1-77.4) |
| Never married | 12 | 71.2 (21.4-95.7) | 10 | 70.2 (16.2-96.6) |
| Yes | 258 | 85.3 (79.6-89.7) | 194 | 74.5 (65.8-81.6) |
| No | 105 | 75.9 (61.7-86.0) | 107 | 70.5 (57.3-80.9) |
| Excellent/very good | 155 | 82.4 (74.2-88.4) | 125 | 73.7 (61.0-83.4) |
| Good | 121 | 85.8 (75.0-92.4) | 101 | 74.7 (65.2-82.2) |
| Fair/poor | 90 | 79.7 (67.1-88.3) | 76 | 69.4 (54.7-81.0) |
| Yes | 314 | 85.1 (78.7-89.9) | 258 | 74.5 (66.7-80.9) |
| No | 51 | 69.1 (50.7-82.9) | 43 | 61.4 (41.6-78.1) |
| ≤1 | 72 | 79.3 (65.5-88.6) | 44 | 49.4 (30.6-68.3) |
| 2-4 | 162 | 79.8 (70.4-86.8) | 138 | 75.2 (66.2-82.4) |
| ≥5 | 132 | 88.9 (81.2-93.6) | 112 | 78.3 (66.4-86.8) |
CI indicates confidence interval; ref, refused; NA, not available; DK, don't know.
In the previous 2 years.
Totals exclude records with missing data.
Numbers are too small for precise estimates.
Prevalence of Recent Colorectal Screening
| Characteristic | Age Group 65-74 years | Age Group ≥75 years | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| No. (Total Sample Size) | Pop. Est., % | No. (Total Sample Size) | Pop. Est., % | |
| Total | 362 | 52.4 (45.7-59.0) | 298 | 50.5 (42.9-58.1) |
| Non-Hispanic white | 295 | 53.2 (45.8-60.4) | 261 | 52.0 (43.9-60.1) |
| Non-Hispanic black | 38 | 58.9 (36.1-78.4) | 21 | 38.3 (15.8-67.2) |
| Hispanic | 29 | 33.3 (12.6-63.3) | 16 | 43.9 (16.0-76.2) |
| <$15,000 | 50 | 38.2 (19.8-60.8) | 66 | 45.7 (30.0-62.4) |
| $15,000-<$25,000 | 93 | 46.1 (33.6-59.1) | 80 | 48.6 (34.0-63.5) |
| ≥$25,000 | 151 | 59.1 (48.1-69.2) | 88 | 54.2 (42.3-65.6) |
| Ref/NA/DK/missing | 68 | 58.3 (43.1-72.1) | 64 | 53.5 (38.6-67.9) |
| <High school graduate | 58 | 44.2 (28.5-61.2) | 66 | 36.4 (23.4-51.7) |
| High school graduate | 140 | 52.9 (44.2-61.5) | 97 | 54.4 (43.4-64.9) |
| Some college | 89 | 58.2 (44.6-70.7) | 78 | 51.6 (39.2-63.8) |
| College graduate | 75 | 58.0 (44.4-70.5) | 55 | 75.5 (58.1-87.3) |
| Married/unmarried couple | 164 | 59.5 (49.6-68.7) | 66 | 59.4 (46.1-71.5) |
| Divorced/separated | 62 | 47.7 (30.0-66.1) | 19 | 43.8 (19.9-71.0) |
| Widowed | 123 | 41.3 (31.6-51.9) | 202 | 47.6 (38.0-57.4) |
| Never married | 12 | 29.0 (6.7-69.8) | 10 | 23.7 (3.1-75.2) |
| Yes | 255 | 54.5 (46.2-62.5) | 190 | 53.5 (46.2-60.6) |
| No | 104 | 47.4 (37.9-57.2) | 107 | 45.8 (30.9-61.4) |
| Excellent/Very good | 153 | 45.9 (38.3-53.8) | 122 | 47.0 (34.4-60.1) |
| Good | 120 | 60.8 (47.1-73.0) | 100 | 55.0 (43.2-66.3) |
| Fair/poor | 89 | 49.7 (37.5-61.9) | 76 | 50.1 (37.0-63.3) |
| Yes | 309 | 54.7 (47.4-61.9) | 255 | 52.6 (44.3-60.7) |
| No | 51 | 38.2 (21.6-58.0) | 42 | 35.9 (20.4-55.0) |
| ≤1 | 71 | 42.9 (27.8-59.5) | 43 | 43.4 (24.5-64.4) |
| 2-4 | 158 | 51.9 (40.3-63.4) | 136 | 46.0 (35.1-57.2) |
| ≥5 | 132 | 57.5 (47.7-66.7) | 111 | 58.9 (47.9-69.1) |
CI indicates confidence interval; ref, refused; NA, not available; DK, don't know.
Fecal occult blood test within the previous year or sigmoidoscopy or colonoscopy within the previous 5 years.
Totals exclude records with missing data.
Numbers are too small for precise estimates.
History of Media Exposure and Preferred Channel of Information, by Adherence
| Characteristic | Mammography Screening | Colorectal Screening | ||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Adhered | Did Not Adhere | Adhered | Did Not Adhere | |||||||
| No. | Est. Pop., %(95% CI) | No. | Est. Pop., %(95% CI) | No. | Est. Pop., %(95% CI) | No. | Est. Pop., %(95% CI) | |||
| On TV | 526 | 93.4 (90.3-95.6) | 140 | 91.8 (85.2-95.6) | .57 | 348 | 94.1 (90.5-96.4) | 309 | 91.6 (7.2-94.6) | .28 |
| In newspaper | 526 | 81.5 (77.5-85.0) | 139 | 66.4 (57.6-74.1) | .002 | 348 | 81.8 (75.6-86.7) | 307 | 75.3 (69.7-80.3) | .11 |
| In magazines | 527 | 74.3 (68.9-79.1) | 140 | 53.5 (42.0-64.6) | .002 | 349 | 75.9 (68.2-82.2) | 308 | 64.0 (57.2-70.4) | .02 |
| On radio | 524 | 46.6 (40.6-52.7) | 141 | 35.4 (27.3-44.4) | .02 | 346 | 48.5 (41.3-55.7) | 310 | 39.8 (31.7-48.5) | .11 |
| On Internet | 525 | 13.2 (10.5-16.5) | 141 | 11.2 (6.4-18.9) | .57 | 350 | 16.3 (12.1-21.6) | 307 | 9.3 (6.0-14.3) | .05 |
| Personalized print | 518 | 80.1 (75.0-84.3) | 136 | 65.8 (56.0-74.3) | .003 | 345 | 80.5 (74.8-85.1) | 300 | 73.1 (65.8-79.2) | .05 |
| Other publication | 525 | 76.4 (71.4-80.9) | 138 | 69.5 (60.9-76.9) | .12 | 346 | 78.5 (72.7-83.4) | 308 | 71.2 (64.8-76.8) | .06 |
| Meeting with health care professional | 518 | 68.7 (64.8-72.5) | 137 | 48.6 (38.6-58.6) | .000 | 343 | 63.8 (57.5-69.6) | 303 | 64.9 (58.4-70.8) | .80 |
| Telephone call | 515 | 57.1 (51.1-62.8) | 138 | 53.4 (42.6-63.9) | .49 | 340 | 55.4 (48.4-62.1) | 305 | 56.9 (49.7-63.7) | .70 |
| Videocassette | 517 | 49.1 (43.4-54.7) | 137 | 35.0 (24.8-46.7) | .02 | 342 | 46.5 (39.6-53.5) | 303 | 45.9 (38.8-53.2) | .91 |
| Audiocassette | 521 | 41.5 (36.3-46.9) | 141 | 31.0 (23.8-39.2) | .03 | 345 | 40.4 (33.8-47.2) | 307 | 37.9 (31.1-45.3) | .64 |
| E-mail/Internet | 522 | 23.5 (19.6-28.0) | 136 | 23.6 (15.6-34.1) | .99 | 347 | 24.4 (18.9-30.9) | 302 | 23.0 (17.6-29.3) | .74 |
| CD-ROM | 520 | 23.2 (18.8-28.2) | 140 | 11.6 (6.2- 20.6) | .01 | 345 | 21.0 (16.5-27.7) | 306 | 20.0 (14.7-26.5) | .70 |
| Another source | 521 | 8.6 (5.9-12.4) | 140 | 4.3 | .1 | 345 | 9.4 (6.4-13.4) | 307 | 5.4 | .16 |
CI indicates confidence interval.
Adherence is defined as mammography screening within previous 2 years, fecal occult blood test within previous year or sigmoidoscopy or colonoscopy screening within previous 5 years.
Responses to "another source" included the following: talking to people who had cancer; talking to family members, friends and other people; receiving information from cancer centers or societies; attending seminars and presentations; and watching television or listening to the radio.
Number is too small for precise estimation.
The opinions expressed by authors contributing to this journal do not necessarily reflect the opinions of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, the Public Health Service, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, or the authors' affiliated institutions. Use of trade names is for identification only and does not imply endorsement by any of the groups named above.