title: Diabetes Status and Being Up-to-Date on Colorectal Cancer Screening, 2012 Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System.
abstract: BACKGROUND
  Although screening rates for colorectal cancer are increasing, 22 million Americans are not up-to-date with recommendations. People with diabetes are an important and rapidly growing group at increased risk for colorectal cancer. Screening status and predictors of being up-to-date on screening are largely unknown in this population.
  
  
  METHODS
  This study used logistic regression modeling and data from the 2012 Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System to examine the association between diabetes and colorectal cancer screening predictors with being up-to-date on colorectal cancer screening according to criteria of the US Preventive Services Task Force for adults aged 50 or older. State prevalence rates of up-to-date colorectal cancer screening were also calculated and mapped.
  
  
  RESULTS
  The prevalence of being up-to-date with colorectal cancer screening for all respondents aged 50 or older was 65.6%; for respondents with diabetes, the rate was 69.2%. Respondents with diabetes were 22% more likely to be up-to-date on colorectal cancer screening than those without diabetes. Among those with diabetes, having a routine checkup within the previous year significantly increased the odds of being up-to-date on colorectal cancer screening (odds ratio, 1.90). Other factors such as age, income, education, race/ethnicity, insurance status, and history of cancer were also associated with up-to-date status.
  
  
  CONCLUSIONS
  Regardless of diabetes status, people who had a routine checkup within the past year were more likely to be up-to-date than people who had not. Among people with diabetes, the duration between routine checkups may be of greater importance than the frequency of diabetes-related doctor visits. Continued efforts should be made to ensure that routine care visits occur regularly to address the preventive health needs of patients with and patients without diabetes.
authors: Arnold School of Public Health, University of South Carolina, Columbia, South Carolina.
authors: Nancy R
authors: NR
authors: Porter
authors: Assistant Professor of Epidemiology, Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, University of South Carolina, Arnold School of Public Health, Columbia, South Carolina. Email: jmeberth@mailbox.sc.edu.
authors: Jan M
authors: JM
authors: Eberth
authors: Arnold School of Public Health, University of South Carolina, Columbia, South Carolina.
authors: Marsha E
authors: ME
authors: Samson
authors: Highmark Blue Shield, Camp Hill, Pennsylvania; College of Medicine, The Pennsylvania State University, Hershey, Pennsylvania; Penn State Hershey Cancer Institute, Hershey, Pennsylvania; College of Health and Human Development, and The Pennsylvania State University, University Park, Pennsylvani.
authors: Oralia
authors: O
authors: Garcia-Dominic
authors: College of Medicine, The Pennsylvania State University, Hershey, Pennsylvania; Penn State Hershey Cancer Institute, Hershey, Pennsylvania; College of Health and Human Development, The Pennsylvania State University, University Park, Pennsylvania.
authors: Eugene J
authors: EJ
authors: Lengerich
authors: Saint Louis University, Saint Louis, Missouri, and Alvin J. Siteman Cancer Center at Barnes-Jewish Hospital and Washington University School of Medicine, Saint Louis, Missouri.
authors: Mario
authors: M
authors: Schootman
mesh_terms: D000368:Aged; D040343:Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System; D015179:Colorectal Neoplasms / Q000517:prevention & control*; D003920:Diabetes Mellitus / Q000453:epidemiology*; D005260:Female; D007722:Health Knowledge, Attitudes, Practice; D006801:Humans; D008297:Male; D008403:Mass Screening / Q000523:psychology / Q000706:statistics & numerical data; D008875:Middle Aged; D012307:Risk Factors; D057566:Self Report; D012812:Sigmoidoscopy / Q000523:psychology / Q000706:statistics & numerical data