Skip Navigation Links
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
 CDC Home Search Health Topics A-Z

Preventing Chronic Disease: Public Health Research, Practice and Policy

View Current Issue
Issue Archive
Archivo de números en español








Emerging Infectious Diseases Journal
MMWR


 Home 

Volume 3: No. 3, July 2006

ORIGINAL RESEARCH
Body Mass Index and Up-to-Date Colorectal Cancer Screening Among Marylanders Aged 50 Years and Older


TABLE OF CONTENTS


Translation available Este resumen en español
  Ce résumé est en français
  本摘要中文版
  本摘要中文版
Print this article Print this article
E-mail this article E-mail this article:



Send feedback to editors Send feedback to editors
Download this article as a PDF Download this article as a PDF (364K)

You will need Adobe Acrobat Reader to view PDF files.


Navigate This Article
Abstract
Introduction
Methods
Results
Discussion
Acknowledgments
Author Information
References
Tables



This page was updated on October 13, 2006 to incorporate the corrections in Vol. 4, No. 1.

Mikhail Menis, PharmD, MS, Bernard Kozlovsky, MD, MS, Pat Langenberg, PhD, Min Zhan, PhD, Diane M. Dwyer, MD, Ebenezer Israel, MD, MPH, Carmela Groves, RN, MS, Annette Hopkins, RN, MS, Eileen K. Steinberger, MD, MS

Suggested citation for this article: Menis M, Kozlovsky B, Langenberg P, Zhan M, Dwyer DM, Israel E, et al. Body mass index and up-to-date colorectal cancer screening among Marylanders aged 50 years and older. Prev Chronic Dis [serial online] 2006 Jul [date cited]. Available from: URL: http://www.cdc.gov/pcd/issues/2006/
jul/05_0178.htm
.

PEER REVIEWED

Abstract

Introduction
Overweight and obese individuals are at increased risk for developing and dying from colorectal cancer. Studies suggest that overweight and obese women are more likely to avoid or delay cancer screening. Our objective was to determine whether overweight or obese adults aged 50 years and older living in Maryland in 2002 were less likely to be up-to-date with colorectal cancer screening than normal and underweight adults. 

Methods
The relationship between body mass index and colorectal cancer screening was evaluated based on responses from 3436 participants aged 50 years and older to the Maryland Cancer Survey 2002, a population-based random-digit–dial telephone survey. The survey contains self-reported information on colorectal cancer screening, height, weight, and potential confounders. Logistic regression was performed to calculate odds ratios (ORs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs), adjusted for age, sex, race, employment, marital status, education, area of residence, and health-care–related variables.

Results
Overall, 64.9% of Marylanders aged 50 and older were up-to-date with colorectal cancer screening. Compared with normal and underweight individuals, overweight individuals had similar odds of being up-to-date with colorectal cancer screening (OR, 1.05; 95% CI, 0.83–1.33). Obese individuals had slightly lower odds, but this difference was not statistically significant (OR, 0.84; 95% CI, 0.65–1.09). Recommendation by a health care provider for colorectal cancer screening was strongly associated with up-to-date colorectal cancer screening (OR, 36.7; 95% CI, 28.7–47.0).

Conclusion
Our study shows no statistically significant association between body mass index levels and up-to-date colorectal cancer screening. We recommend that physicians and other health care providers increase up-to-date colorectal cancer screening rates in the population by referring their patients for appropriate screening.

Back to top

Introduction

Colorectal cancer (CRC) is the third most common type of cancer among men and among women and is the second leading cause of cancer-related mortality in the United States (1,2). It has been estimated that in 2004, about 146,940 new cases were diagnosed, and about 56,730 individuals died of CRC (2). Approximately 93% of CRC cases occur in people who are aged 50 years or older (3). Therefore, asymptomatic individuals without known risk factors (e.g., a personal or family history of CRC or adenomas, certain genetic syndromes, personal history of inflammatory bowel disease, endometrial or ovarian cancer) are recommended to undergo CRC screening beginning at age 50 (4,5). This recommendation includes either a fecal occult blood test (FOBT) annually, a flexible sigmoidoscopy every 5 years, an annual FOBT plus flexible sigmoidoscopy every 5 years, a colonoscopy every 10 years, or a double-contrast barium enema (DCBE) every 5 years, as recommended by the American Cancer Society. CRC screening has been shown to reduce CRC mortality through identifying and removing precancerous polyps and detecting and treating the cancer in its early stages (4,5).

The prevalence of obesity in the United States has increased more than 30% in the past decade (6). An estimated 64% of U.S. adults aged 20 and older were overweight or obese in 1999 to 2000 (7). Overweight and obese individuals with a body mass index (BMI) of 25 kg/m2 or higher are at increased risk for some types of cancers including endometrial, breast, prostate, gallbladder, and colorectal (8,9). Studies suggest that higher body weight is associated with higher mortality from CRC (10-13). Because overweight and obese individuals are at higher risk for developing CRC as well as at higher risk of dying from CRC, it is important that they obtain the recommended CRC screening.

Previous studies suggested that overweight and obese women are more likely to avoid or delay cancer screening (14-17). However, only one of these studies specifically evaluated the relationship between BMI and CRC screening; this study showed that morbidly obese women were less likely to be screened for CRC (17). The primary purpose of our study was, therefore, to determine whether overweight or obese adults aged 50 and older living in Maryland in 2002 were less likely to have an up-to-date CRC screening than normal and underweight adults. We used the Maryland Cancer Survey (MCS) 2002 as a primary data source to evaluate the relationship between BMI and CRC screening.

Back to top

Methods

MCS survey design and data collection 

The MCS 2002 (18) is a population-based statewide survey on cancer screening and behavioral risk factors among people aged 40 and older. Methods for the survey are based on the Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System (BRFSS). Institutional review board approval was received from the University of Maryland and the Maryland Department of Health and Mental Hygiene.

The MCS was conducted by telephone using random-digit–dialing with computer-assisted telephone interview (CATI) and list-assisted disproportionate stratified sampling. Respondents were eligible to participate in the survey if they were aged 40 or older and lived in a private residence in Maryland. Respondents were ineligible for participation if they were younger than 40 years, did not speak English, lived in group homes and institutions, or were unable to communicate because of a physical or mental impairment. 

For the purposes of sampling, Maryland was divided into two geographic strata: urban and rural. The urban area consisted of Baltimore City and seven counties in the Metropolitan Baltimore–Washington, D.C., area (Anne Arundel, Baltimore, Carroll, Harford, Howard, Montgomery, and Prince George’s). The rural area consisted of the remaining counties in western Maryland, southern Maryland, and the Eastern Shore. The Marketing Systems Group, Genesys Sampling (Fort Washington, Pa), provided 100,000 random telephone numbers. Each geographic stratum had three types of telephone number blocks: listed one plus, not listed one plus, and zero. These blocks corresponded to the number of residential telephone numbers found among a series of 100 numbers. One plus blocks were known to contain at least one residential telephone number and were sampled at a higher rate than the zero block telephone numbers. Rural telephone numbers were oversampled.

Telephone interviews using CATI were conducted by REDA International, Inc (Wheaton, Md), a survey research firm. When someone answered the telephone, the number was confirmed to be a residential phone number. It was determined whether an adult aged 40 years or older was living in the residence. If two or more people in the household were aged 40 or older, one was selected at random for the anonymous interview, which took about 20 minutes to complete. A total of 84,172 numbers were called or prescreened as nonresidential numbers: 51.8% were nonworking numbers, 10.3% were business or institution phone numbers, and 26.3% of were ineligible or excluded for various reasons. Overall, 6.0% of phone numbers resulted in 5071 completed interviews for the survey. Responses from 31 people who refused to give their race were omitted from the data set for analysis, leaving 5040 respondents. The Council of American Survey Research Organizations (CASRO) response rate, defined as Completed Interviews/(Eligible + Presumed Eligible), was 38.4%. The completion rate, defined as Completed Interviews/Known Eligible, was 65.4%.

The data set was weighted according to BRFSS weighting protocol (19). The final weight was applied to take into account the sampling probability by geographic region (urban or rural), residential telephone sampling among the three blocks of phone numbers (listed one plus, not listed one plus, and zero block), the number of adults aged 40 and older in the respondent’s household, the number of residential telephone numbers in each household, and the number of people in age, race, and sex categories for each geographic stratum.

Statistical analysis 

Definition of the analytic sample 

A total of 5040 respondents aged 40 years and older participated in the MCS 2002. This secondary data analysis was performed on 3436 people whose age in the data set was 50 years or older, the age at which CRC screening is recommended.

Definition of the outcome variable 

Respondents were asked about testing with FOBT and sigmoidoscopy or colonoscopy and the time since their most recent test. Individuals were considered to have up-to-date colorectal cancer screening if they had received an FOBT within the last year, a sigmoidoscopy within the last 5 years, or a colonoscopy within the last 10 years. Individuals who answered “don’t know/not sure” or “refused” to the questions about specific cancer screening tests or were unable to specify the time interval since their last screening examination (answered “don’t know/not sure” or “refused”) were excluded from the up-to-date screening analysis (n = 100).

Definitions of the main study variables 

Definitions of overweight and obesity are based on the commonly used BMI. BMI is equal to weight in kilograms divided by height in meters2. BMI was subdivided into three weight categories: normal weight or underweight (BMI <25), overweight (BMI 25–29.9), and obese (BMI ≥30) (20).

Potentially confounding or effect-modifying variables 

We first identified potentially confounding or effect-modifying covariates from the MCS data based on the scientific literature (21-23), our views of their importance, and their availability in the MCS. The covariates identified were geographic area of residence (urban or rural), sex, race, age, marital status, education, employment, general health status, health insurance, physical examination in the last 2 years, and CRC screening recommendation by a physician or other health professional. Respondents were considered to have had a recommendation for CRC screening if they had ever received a recommendation for a sigmoidoscopy or colonoscopy or if they had received a recommendation for an FOBT in the last year. We then ascertained the unadjusted associations of these potential confounding or effect-modifying variables with up-to-date CRC screening and BMI levels. Variables found to be significantly associated (P < .05) with up-to-date CRC screening, as well as sex and geographic area, were included in the final multivariable analysis. We also examined whether any variables modified the association between BMI and CRC screening by conducting stratified analyses. In the stratified analyses, only sex was found to modify this association. 

Analysis 

The bivariate analyses with weighted proportions were assessed for significance using the chi-square test and analyzed with SAS version 9.1 (SAS Institute, Cary, NC). The association between BMI levels and up-to-date CRC screening was estimated using multivariable logistic regression models to control for potentially confounding factors. The final model controlled for sex, race, age, marital status, education, employment, geographic area, health insurance, having had a physical examination in the last 2 years, and CRC screening recommendation. The interaction terms between sex and BMI were excluded from the final models because the overall modifying effect by sex was not significant after controlling for all other covariates in the logistic regression model. The unweighted multivariable analyses were performed using SAS version 9.1.

Back to top

Results

There were 3436 Marylanders aged 50 years and older who participated in the MCS 2002. The surveyed sample is described in Table 1; 78.9% were white, 62.4% were women, 56.3% were aged 50 to 64, and 56.8% were married or a partner in an unmarried couple. The weighted percentages in Table 1 show that about 24.0% of Marylanders aged 50 and older belonged to the highest income category of $75,000 or more; 45.2% were retired, 43.0% were employed, 57.3% had some college education or more, and 77.9% lived in urban areas. 

Table 2 displays the health-care–related characteristics of Marylanders aged 50 and older. Among this population, 95.8% reported having some type of health insurance; 86.8% had visited a health care provider in the last year for a routine checkup, and 93.7% reported having had a routine checkup in the last 2 years. In addition, 40.9% reported having received a recommendation in the last year to perform a home FOBT, and 63.5% reported that at some time they had received a recommendation to have a lower gastrointestinal (GI) endoscopy (sigmoidoscopy or colonoscopy). Combining these two recommendations, 73.2% reported either receiving a recommendation in the last year to have an FOBT or ever receiving a recommendation to have a lower GI endoscopy. 

About 33.8% of Marylanders aged 50 and older had received an FOBT within the preceding year; 11.4% had received a sigmoidoscopy within the last 5 years; and 42.0% had received a colonoscopy within the last 10 years (data not shown). Overall, 64.9% of Marylanders aged 50 and older had received an up-to-date CRC screening with FOBT, sigmoidoscopy, or colonoscopy. The remainder either reported never having had CRC screening (25.9%) or having been tested in the past but not being up-to-date (9.3%). Race, age, marital status, education, employment status, health insurance, physical examination in the last 2 years, and receiving a screening recommendation from a health care provider were significantly associated with up-to-date CRC screening (Table 3). People of other races were less likely than whites or blacks to have had an up-to-date screening. Adults who were aged 65 and older, were married, were currently retired, had higher levels of education, or had health insurance were more likely to have had an up-to-date CRC screening. Up-to-date CRC screening was not associated with area of residence, sex, or self-reported health status. Individuals who had received a physical examination in the last 2 years were more likely to have received an up-to-date CRC screening than individuals who did not have a physical examination in the last 2 years, and individuals who reported receiving a health care provider screening recommendation for either FOBT or lower GI endoscopy were more likely to have received an up-to-date CRC screening than those who reported no provider recommendation. The association with the health care provider recommendation was the strongest.

More than 60% of Marylanders aged 50 and older were either overweight (36.0%) or obese (25.4%) (Table 4). Fewer than 40% of Marylanders aged 50 and older were either of normal weight (35.3%) or underweight (3.3%). Sex, race, age, marital status, education, and health status were significantly associated with BMI levels. Men were more likely to be overweight, whereas women were more likely to be normal or underweight; blacks were more likely to be obese than whites or people of other races; individuals with education beyond high school tended to be normal or underweight more often than those with a high school education or less; and individuals in excellent or very good or good health status tended to be normal or underweight compared with individuals who considered themselves in fair or poor health status, who were more likely to be obese. No significant differences in BMI distribution were found by area of residence, employment status, health insurance, time since last physical examination, or screening recommendation from a provider. 

Table 5 displays the unadjusted associations between BMI levels and CRC screening. There were no significant differences in up-to-date CRC screening rates among different BMI categories (P = .84). Table 6 shows the results of two multivariable logistic regression models examining the association between BMI levels and up-to-date CRC screening adjusted for potentially confounding factors. The first model (model 1) uses only sociodemographic characteristics, whereas the second includes health-care–related variables (i.e., health insurance, physical examination in the last 2 years, and provider recommendation for CRC screening). In the first model, overweight and obese individuals had similar odds of having an up-to-date CRC screening as normal or underweight individuals (OR, 1.07; 95% CI, 0.89–1.27; and OR, 1.07; 95% CI, 0.88–1.30, respectively). In the second model (model 2), the odds of having up-to-date screening for overweight individuals compared with normal and underweight individuals were similar. Obese individuals had slightly lower odds of having up-to-date screening than normal and underweight individuals (OR, 0.84; 95% CI, 0.65–1.09), but this difference was not statistically significant (P = .19).

The addition of health-care–related variables in model 2 does not significantly alter the association between BMI levels and up-to-date CRC screening. Higher odds of having up-to-date CRC screening were found when a routine physical examination had been received in the last 2 years (OR, 2.53; 95% CI, 1.65–3.90). Reporting a recommendation for CRC screening by a health care provider resulted in the highest OR of 36.7 (95% CI, 28.7–47.0).

The results of both logistic regression analyses show that adults aged 65 and older had higher odds of having an up-to-date CRC screening than individuals aged 50 to 64. Higher odds of having an up-to-date CRC screening were also found among individuals with at least some college education than among individuals with a high school education or less. Lower odds of having an up-to-date CRC screening were found among individuals who were employed for wages, self-employed, and not employed than among individuals who were retired. Compared with whites, blacks had similar odds of having an up-to-date CRC screening. Although not statistically significant, individuals of other races had lower odds of having an up-to-date CRC screening than whites. No difference was noted between men and women. 

Logistic regression analysis was performed for each individual screening test (FOBT, sigmoidoscopy, and colonoscopy) to determine whether there were differences in up-to-date screening by BMI. No differences were found for colonoscopy or sigmoidoscopy. For FOBT in the past year, people who were obese had lower odds of being screened (OR, 0.73; 95% CI, 0.59–0.90) (data not shown).

Back to top

Discussion

Our results show that 64.9% of Maryland adults aged 50 years and older are up-to-date with CRC screening based on FOBT, sigmoidoscopy, or colonoscopy recommendations for those at average risk. DCBE was not included and may have increased the up-to-date percentage slightly. The majority of Maryland adults aged 50 and older were found to be either overweight (36.0%) or obese (25.4%). The analysis demonstrates that overweight individuals have similar odds of having up-to-date CRC screening as normal and underweight adults. Our analysis also suggests a potential for lower odds of up-to-date screening for obese adults than normal and underweight adults, although this result was not statistically significant. Significant predictors of an up-to-date CRC screening in the multivariable analysis included older age, having some college education or more, and being retired. In addition, we observed that having had a physical examination in the last 2 years and reporting a CRC screening recommendation from a doctor or other health professional were strongly associated with having an up-to-date CRC screening. 

Compared with the U.S. population in 2000 (24), adults aged 50 and older living in Maryland have a much higher up-to-date CRC screening rate (34.0% for the U.S. population vs 64.9% for Marylanders). The high screening rates among Marylanders may be due to the high rates of health insurance coverage as well as to high socioeconomic status. Medicare pays for CRC screening, including colonoscopy. In addition, since 2001 Maryland has required health insurance plans to pay for CRC screening; also since 2001, almost all of Maryland’s 24 local health jurisdictions — through funding from the Cigarette Restitution Fund Master Settlement Agreement — have funded CRC screening for people with low incomes who are uninsured. CRC incidence rates have shown a steady decline in Maryland since 1997, when the age-adjusted incidence was 61.2 per 100,000, to 2001, when the rate was 52.5 per 100,000. The incidence rate in 2001 was similar to the U.S. rate of 51.8 per 100,000 reported by the National Cancer Institute’s Surveillance Epidemiology End Results (SEER). Mortality from CRC also declined in Maryland from 24.5 per 100,000 in 1997 to 21.6 per 100,000 in 2001. The mortality rate in 2001 was statistically significantly higher than the U.S. SEER rate of 20.0 per 100,000. (Rates were age-adjusted to the 2000 standard U.S. population [25].)

In contrast to the results of our study, which show no statistically significant association between BMI levels and CRC screening, previous studies support an association between BMI and cancer screening. Overall, the studies suggest that overweight and obese individuals are more likely to delay or avoid cancer screening (14-17). The authors suggest that there could be multiple factors responsible for this relationship, including concerns about appearance, self-esteem, body image, discomfort with the procedures, and possible negative biases emanating from physicians and health care providers (14). Most of these studies focused on cancer screening among women and demonstrated that overweight and obese women were more likely to delay or avoid Papanicolaou testing, clinical breast examination, and mammography (14-16). Rosen and Schneider (17) examined the relationship between BMI and CRC screening. Their study showed that morbidly obese women (BMI ≥35 kg/m2) were less likely to be screened for CRC. Analyzing data from the 1999 BRFSS, Rosen and Schneider used a narrower definition that included FOBT within the last year or endoscopic screening (sigmoidoscopy or colonoscopy) within the last 5 years. The authors also found a low overall CRC screening rate of 43.8% in the United States, whereas our study found a high overall CRC screening rate of 64.9% among Marylanders aged 50 and older.

The high up-to-date CRC screening rate in Maryland could be one reason for our finding of no statistically significant association between BMI levels and an up-to-date CRC screening. We also found a similar distribution of BMIs for those who reported receiving provider screening recommendations and for those who did not report receiving the recommendation, which suggests no demonstrable bias among providers recommending screening for or against people in any particular BMI category. Although a study by Teachman and Brownell (26) found that health professionals may have negative implicit attitudes toward obese individuals, we found no evidence of those attitudes in our analysis based on reported provider recommendations.

Previous studies support some of our significant predictors of an up-to-date CRC screening. In a study by Shapiro et al (22), the authors analyzed data from the BRFSS and found that the reported use of CRC screening tests increased with each decade of age from 50 to 80 and with increasing educational level and income. The study also found that CRC screening rates were not different among whites compared with blacks and that Asian or Pacific Islanders and American Indians or Alaska Natives were less likely to report having a CRC screening test than whites or blacks. Although the odds of having up-to-date CRC screening were lower among people of other races in our study, the result was not statistically significant. It has been shown that self-reported rates of having CRC screening were lower among individuals without health care coverage than among those with health care coverage (22). The study by Zapka et al (23) also determined that individuals who were uninsured had the lowest current CRC screening rate and that the type of insurance had little impact on CRC testing. Our bivariate analysis showed that people with health insurance were almost twice as likely to report up-to-date CRC screening as people without health insurance. However, when recommendation for screening and having a physical examination in the last 2 years were included in the multivariable analysis, having health insurance was not a significant factor. Having had a recent physical examination and, more importantly, having a health care provider recommendation increased the odds of having up-to-date CRC screening. The results of our study, as well as previous studies (23,24), demonstrate that a health care provider recommendation for CRC screening greatly facilitates the screening. Our results also show that about a quarter of all adults aged 50 and older do not report having had CRC screening recommended by a provider, either lower GI endoscopy or a recent FOBT. Therefore, to increase up-to-date CRC screening rates, all physicians should recommend that adults aged 50 and older comply with the guidelines and undergo CRC screening.

Our study has several limitations that could have influenced the results. The MCS data are self-reported by participants, thus introducing the possibility of recall bias. The accuracy of participants’ recall of sociodemographic characteristics, height and weight, and provider recommendation of CRC screening and screening occurrence were not verified, which may have affected the results. For example, it is generally known that individuals tend to underreport weight and overreport height, resulting in underestimation of BMI (27,28). Those who were screened may be more likely to report having had a provider recommend CRC screening.  Furthermore, those who participated in the survey could be different from those who did not participate, resulting in selection bias. Both recall bias and selection bias can underestimate or overestimate the true effect. Finally, the MCS obtains data only from noninstitutionalized English-speaking individuals who live in a household residence with landline telephones, thereby limiting the generalizability of the results. 

The study also has several strengths, including the large sample size focusing on the Maryland population aged 50 and older. The MCS primarily uses validated questions chosen from national and state surveys. The survey also provides information on multiple potential confounders. 

In conclusion, our study showed no statistically significant association between BMI levels and up-to-date CRC screening. However, data suggest a possible association between obesity and lower odds of an up-to-date CRC screening. Furthermore, the analysis showed that obese adults were significantly less likely to be up-to-date with FOBT than normal and underweight individuals. High up-to-date CRC screening rates in the state of Maryland and the seeming lack of bias among providers who recommend CRC screening may have contributed to our finding of no statistically significant association between BMI levels and up-to-date CRC screening. Additionally, high screening rates in the state may reflect the high rate of health insurance coverage among individuals aged 50 and older and the state’s requirement that health insurance plans pay for CRC screening. Our results also suggest that to further increase up-to-date CRC screening rates among adults aged 50 and older, health care providers need to recommend appropriate screening procedures for all patients in this age group. Research on the association between body weight and CRC screening is scarce. Our findings in Maryland may not be generalizable to the nation. For these reasons, additional research is needed to verify our findings.

Back to top

Acknowledgments

The Maryland Cancer Survey 2002 was funded by the Maryland Department of Health and Mental Hygiene, Center for Cancer Surveillance and Control, using funds from the Cigarette Restitution Fund Program. This publication was supported, in part, by the Maryland Cigarette Restitution Fund.

Back to top

Author Information

Corresponding Author: Eileen K. Steinberger, Department of Epidemiology and Preventive Medicine, University of Maryland School of Medicine, Howard Hall, Suite 100, 660 W Redwood St, Baltimore, MD 21201. Telephone: 410-767-0789. E-mail: estein@epi.umaryland.edu.

Author Affiliations: Mikhail Menis, Bernard Kozlovsky, Pat Langenberg, Min Zhan, Ebenezer Israel, Annette Hopkins, Department of Epidemiology and Preventive Medicine, University of Maryland School of Medicine, Baltimore, Md; Diane M. Dwyer, Carmela Groves, Center for Cancer Surveillance and Control, Maryland Department of Health and Mental Hygiene, Baltimore, Md.

Back to top

References

  1. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Colorectal cancer: the importance of prevention and early detection [Internet]. Atlanta (GA): Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services;2005. Available from: URL: http://www.cdc.gov/cancer/colorctl/colopdf/about2004.pdf.
  2. American Cancer Society. Cancer facts and figures: 2004 [Internet]. Atlanta (GA): American Cancer Society;2004. Available from: URL: http://www.cancer.org/downloads/STT/CAFF_ finalPWSecured.pdf*.
  3. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Colorectal cancer: basic facts on screening [Internet]. Atlanta (GA): Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services;2006. Available from: URL: http://www.cdc.gov/colorectalcancer/pdf/fs-patient-basic.pdf.
  4. Winawer SJ, Fletcher RH, Miller L, Godlee F, Stolar MH, Mulrow CD, et al. Colorectal cancer screening: clinical guidelines and rationale. Gastroenterology 1997;112(2):594-642.
  5. Winawer S, Fletcher R, Rex D, Bond J, Burt R, Ferrucci J, et al. Colorectal cancer screening and surveillance: clinical guidelines and rationale — update based on new evidence. Gastroenterology 2003;124(2):544-60.
  6. Poston WSC, Foreyt JP, Borrell L, Haddock CK. Challenges in obesity management. South Med J 1998;91(8):710-20.
  7. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Overweight prevalence [Internet]. Atlanta (GA): Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Available from: URL: http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/overwt.htm.
  8. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Overweight and obesity: health consequences [Internet]. Atlanta (GA): Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Available from: URL: http://www.cdc.gov/nccdphp/dnpa/obesity/consequences.htm.
  9. Levi F. Cancer prevention: epidemiology and perspectives. Eur J Cancer 1999;35(14):1912-24.
  10. Murphy TK, Calle EE, Rodriguez C, Kahn HS, Thun MJ. Body mass index and colon cancer mortality in a large prospective study. Am J Epidemiol 2000;152(9):847-54.
  11. Shike M. Body weight and colon cancer. Am J Clin Nutr 1996;63(3 Suppl):442S-444S.
  12. Lew EA, Garfinkel L. Variations in mortality by weight among 750,000 men and women. J Chronic Dis 1979;32(8):563-76.
  13. Phillips RL, Snowdon DA. Dietary relationships with fatal colorectal cancer among Seventh-Day Adventists. J Natl Cancer Inst 1985;74(2):307-17.
  14. Fontaine KR, Heo M, Allison DB. Body weight and cancer screening among women. J Womens Health Gend Based Med 2001;10(5):463-70.
  15. Fontaine KR, Faith MS, Allison DB, Cheskin LJ. Body weight and health care among women in the general population. Arch Fam Med 1998;7(4):381-4.
  16. Wee CC, McCarthy EP, Davis RB, Phillips RS. Screening for cervical and breast cancer: is obesity an unrecognized barrier to preventive care? Ann Intern Med 2000;132(9):697-704.
  17. Rosen AB, Schneider EC. Colorectal cancer screening disparities related to obesity and gender. J Gen Intern Med 2004;19(4):332-8.
  18. Steinberger E, Hopkins A, Zhan M, Uman J, Glover M, Israel E, et al. Maryland cancer survey, 2002 [Internet]. Baltimore (MD): Maryland Family Health Administration; 2002. Available from: URL: http://www.fha.state.md.us/cancer/pdf/MCS_Report_2002-V3.pdf.*
  19. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. BRFSS weighting formula [Internet]. Atlanta (GA): Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Available from: URL: http://www.cdc.gov/brfss/ti-weighting.htm.
  20. Gallagher D, Song MY. Evaluation of body composition: practical guidelines. Prim Care 2003;30(2):249-65.
  21. Neilson AR, Whynes DK. Determinants of persistent compliance with screening for colorectal cancer. Soc Sci Med 1995;41(3):365-74.
  22. Shapiro JA, Seeff LC, Nadel MR. Colorectal cancer — screening tests and associated health behaviors. Am J Prev Med 2001;21(2):132-7.
  23. Zapka JG, Puleo E, Vickers-Lahti M, Luckmann R. Healthcare system factors and colorectal cancer screening. Am J Prev Med 2002;23(1):28-35.
  24. Subramanian S, Klosterman M, Amonkar MM, Hunt TL. Adherence with colorectal cancer screening guidelines: a review. Prev Med 2004;38(5):536-50.
  25. Maryland Department of Health and Mental Hygiene. Annual cancer report [Internet]. Baltimore (MD): Maryland Family Health Administration, Cigarette Restitution Fund Program; 2004. Available from: URL: http://www.fha.state.md.us/cancer/html/crf_ann_can_rpt.html.*
  26. Teachman BA, Brownell KD. Implicit anti-fat bias among health professionals: is anyone immune? Int J Obes Relat Metab Disord 2001;25(10):1525-31.
  27. Jeffery RW. Bias in reported body weight as a function of education, occupation, health and weight concern. Addict Behav 1996;21(2):217-22.
  28. Palta M, Prineas RJ, Berman R, Hannan P. Comparison of self-reported and measured height and weight. Am J Epidemiol 1982;115(2):223-30.

Back to top

 



Tables

Return to your place in the textTable 1. Sociodemographic Characteristics of Survey Sample of Marylanders Aged 50 Years and Older (n = 3436) Weighted to the Maryland Population, Maryland Cancer Survey 2002
Characteristic Unweighted No.a (%) Weighted % (95% CI)
Geographic area
Urban 2289 (66.6) 77.9  NA
Rural 1147 (33.4) 22.1  NA
Sex
Male 1293 (37.6) 44.9 NA
Female 2143 (62.4) 55.1  NA
Race
White 2711 (78.9) 73.5 NA
Black 597 (17.4) 21.5 NA
Other 128 (3.73) 5.00  NA
Age, y
50-64 1933 (56.3) 58.0  NA
65-74 858 (25.0) 24.6 NA
≥75 645 (18.8) 17.4  NA
Marital status
Married or partner in unmarried couple 1941 (56.8) 66.0 64.2-67.7
Divorced or separated 551 (16.1) 13.5 12.2-14.7
Widowed 769 (22.5) 16.6 15.3-17.9
Never married 157 (4.59) 3.9 3.3-4.6
Education
Less than high school 434 (12.7) 13.0 11.7-14.3
High school graduate or GED 1057 (30.9) 29.7 28.0-31.5
College 1-3 years 718 (21.0) 20.3 18.7-21.8
College graduate 642 (18.8) 19.8 18.2-21.4
Advanced degree 565 (16.5) 17.2 15.8-18.7
Employment
Employed for wages 1219 (35.6) 36.6 34.7-38.5
Self-employed 214  (6.3) 6.4 5.4-7.4
Retired 1590 (46.5) 45.2 43.3-47.1
Not employed 396 (11.6) 11.8 10.5-13.0
Annual household income, $
<25,000 733 (21.3) 19.1 17.6-20.6
25,000 to 34,999 386 (11.2) 10.6 9.4-11.7
35,000 to 49,999 478 (13.9) 14.0 12.7-15.3
50,000 to 74,999 427 (12.4) 13.4 12.0-14.7
≥75,000 748 (21.8) 24.0 22.3-25.8
Don’t know/not sure or refused 664 (19.3) 19.0 17.5-20.5

CI indicates confidence interval; NA, not applicable.
aNumber of responses for each characteristic does not always equal sample size because of missing values.

Return to your place in the textTable 2. Health-Care–related Characteristics of Survey Sample of Marylanders Aged 50 Years and Older (n = 3436), Weighted to the Maryland Population, Maryland Cancer Survey 2002
Characteristic Unweighted No.a (%) Weighted %
(95% CI)
Has health insurance
Yes 3280 (95.6)

95.8 (95.0-96.6)

No 150 (4.4)

4.2 (3.4-5.0)

Has had routine checkup in the last year
Yes 2929 (86.8)

86.8 (85.5-88.1)

No 447 (13.2)

13.2 (11.9-14.5)

Has had routine checkup in the last 2 years
Yes 3154 (93.4)

93.7 (92.8-94.6)

No 222 (6.6) 6.3 (5.4-7.2)
Has reported that a health care provider recommended an FOBT in the last year
Yes 1370 (40.5)

40.9 (39.0-42.8)

No 2015 (59.5)

59.1 (57.2-61.0)

Has reported that a health care provider ever recommended having endoscopy
Yes 2153 (63.3)

63.5 (61.6-65.4)

No 1250 (36.7)

36.5 (34.6-38.4)

Has reported recommendation from a health care provider for CRC screening (FOBT in last year or endoscopy ever)
Yes 2502 (72.9)

73.2 (71.5-74.9)

No 931 (27.1)

26.8 (25.1-28.5)

Self-perceived health status
Excellent 499 (14.6)

14.8 (13.4-16.2)

Very good 1117 (32.6)

32.3 (30.5-34.2)

Good 1126 (32.9)

33.3 (31.5-35.1)

Fair 530 (15.5)

14.9 (13.5-16.2)

Poor 152 (4.4)

4.6 (3.8-5.5)

FOBT indicates fecal occult blood test; CI, confidence interval; CRC, colorectal cancer.
aNumber of responses for each characteristic does not equal sample size because of missing values.

Return to your place in the textTable 3. Unadjusted Associations Between Potential Confounding or Effect-modifying Variables and Colorectal Cancer (CRC) Screening, Maryland Cancer Survey 2002
Variable Up-to-Date CRC Screening, Weighted %a P Valueb
Total population 64.9 NA
Area of residence
Urban 65.5 .14
Rural  62.6
Sex
Male 65.5 .56
Female 64.3
Race
White 66.1 .03
Black 63.4
Other 52.6
Age, y
50-64 59.5 <.001
65-74 73.8
≥75 70.2
Marital status
Married or partner in unmarried couple 66.6 .02
Divorced or separated 60.7
Widowed 64.2
Never married 55.4
Education
High school graduate or less 59.6 <.001
Some college or more 68.8
Employment
Employed for wages 61.2 <.001
Self-employed 50.5
Retired 72.8
Not employed 54.7
Health insurance
Yes 66.1 <.001
No 35.8
Health status
Excellent, very good, or good 64.8 .80
Fair or poor 65.4
Physical examination in last 2 years
Yes 67.3 <.001
No 30.5
Recommendation from provider for CRC screening
Yes 83.5 <.001
No 11.9

NA indicates not applicable.
aWeighted to the Maryland population.
bChi-square test to compare proportions; a priori level of significance is P < .05.

Return to your place in the textTable 4.  Unadjusted Associations Between Potential Confounding or Effect-modifying Variables and Body Mass Index (BMI) Levels, Maryland Cancer Survey 2002
Variable BMI Level P Valuea
<25 kg/m2 25-29.9 kg/m2  ≥30 kg/m2
Weighted % Weighted % Weighted %
Total population 38.7 36.0 25.4 NA 
Area of residence
Urban 39.4 35.6 25.0 .23
Rural 36.0 37.2 26.8
Sex
Male 32.1 42.2 25.7 <.001
Female 44.3 30.6 25.1
Race
White 42.2 35.8 22.0 <.001
Black 23.9 36.3 39.8
Other 49.6 36.7 13.7
Age, y
50-64 35.1 36.5 28.5 <.001
65-74 39.3 36.4 24.2
≥75 49.2 33.7 17.0
Marital status
Married or partner in unmarried couple 37.8 37.9 24.3 .01
Divorced or separated 35.4 35.4 29.2
Widowed 43.1 30.9 26.1
Never married 43.9 27.2 29.0
Education
High school graduate or less 35.9 34.2 29.9 <.001
Some college or more 40.7 37.4 21.9
Employment
Employed for wages 37.2 36.2 26.6 .43
Self-employed 34.7 41.6 23.8
Retired 40.4 35.6 24.0
Not employed 38.5 33.4 28.1
Health insurance
Yes 39.0 35.9 25.1 .15
No 30.0 38.8 31.2
Health status
Excellent, very good, or good 39.8 37.0 23.2 <.001
Fair or poor 33.6 31.9 34.5
Physical examination in last 2 years
Yes 38.5 35.7 25.9 .19
No  42.6 38.1 19.4
Recommendation from provider for colorectal cancer screening
Yes 38.0 36.1 26.0 .40
No 40.6 35.7 23.7

NA indicates not applicable.
aChi-square test to compare proportions; a priori level of significance is P <.05.

Return to your place in the textTable 5. Unadjusted Associations Between Body Mass Index (BMI) Levels and Colorectal Cancer (CRC) Screening, Maryland Cancer Survey 2002
BMI Category (kg/m2) Up-to-Date CRC Screening, Weighted % P Valuea Unadjusted Odds Ratio for CRC Screening (95% CI)
<25 (normal and underweight) 65.4 .84

Ref

25-29.9 (overweight) 65.3

1.03 (0.87-1.21)

≥30 (obese) 64.0

0.92 (0.76-1.10)

CI indicates confidence interval; ref, reference group.
aChi-square test for comparison of screening prevalence across different BMI categories.

Return to your place in the textTable 6. Associations Between Body Mass Index (BMI) Levels and Other Factors and Up-to-Date Colorectal Cancer (CRC) Screening in Two Multivariable Logistic Regression Models, Maryland Cancer Survey 2002
Category Model 1a Model 2b
OR (95% CI) P Value OR (95% CI) P Value
BMI (kg/m2)
<25 (normal and underweight) Ref   Ref  
25-29.9 (overweight) 1.07 (0.89-1.27) .48 1.05 (0.83-1.33) .70
≥30 (obese) 1.07 (0.88-1.30) .52 0.84 (0.65-1.09) .19
Sex
Female Ref   Ref  
Male 0.94 (0.80-1.11) .49 1.01 (0.81-1.25) .96
Race
White Ref   Ref  
Black 0.98 (0.80-1.21) .88 1.16 (0.87-1.55) .31
Other 0.73 (0.49-1.08) .11 0.77 (0.46-1.29) .33
Age, y
50-64 Ref   Ref  
≥65 1.43 (1.17-1.74) <.001 1.45 (1.10-1.90) .008
Marital status
Not married Ref   Ref  
Married 1.43 (1.22-1.67) <.001 1.16 (0.94-1.44) .17
Education
High school graduate or less Ref   Ref  
Some college or more 1.62 (1.38-1.90) <.001 1.32 (1.07-1.64) .01
Employment
Retired Ref   Ref  
Employed for wages 0.67 (0.55-0.83) <.001 0.63 (0.47-0.83) .001
Self-employed 0.46 (0.33-0.64) <.001 0.49 (0.32-0.76) .002
Not employed 0.59 (0.45-0.77) <.001 0.68 (0.48-0.98) .04
Geographic area
Rural Ref   Ref  
Urban 1.26 (1.07-1.48) .006 1.23 (0.99-1.53) .06
Health insurance
Yes

 —

  0.98 (0.58-1.68) .95
No

  Ref  
Physical examination in last 2 years
Yes

  2.53 (1.65-3.90) <.001
No

 —

  Ref  
Screening recommendation from provider
Yes

  36.7 (28.7-47.0) <.001
No

 —

  Ref  

OR indicates odds ratio; CI, confidence interval; ref, reference group; dash (—), not included in model.
aModel 1 includes only sociodemographic characteristics.
bModel 2 includes sociodemographic characteristics and health-care–related variables.

Back to top

*URLs for nonfederal organizations are provided solely as a service to our users. URLs do not constitute an endorsement of any organization by CDC or the federal government, and none should be inferred. CDC is not responsible for the content of Web pages found at these URLs.

 




 



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, the 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.


 Home 

Privacy Policy | Accessibility

CDC Home | Search | Health Topics A-Z

This page last reviewed March 22, 2013

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion
 HHS logoUnited States Department of
Health and Human Services