Are Religious Women More Likely to Have Breast Cancer Screening
Transcript of Are Religious Women More Likely to Have Breast Cancer Screening
-
8/9/2019 Are Religious Women More Likely to Have Breast Cancer Screening
1/15
Are Religious Women More Likely to Have Breast Cancer Screening?Author(s): Peter H. Van Ness, Stanislav V. Kasl, Beth A. JonesSource: Journal of Religion and Health, Vol. 41, No. 4 (Winter, 2002), pp. 333-346Published by: SpringerStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/27511642Accessed: 18/08/2010 03:55
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available athttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp . JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unlessyou have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and youmay use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use.
Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained athttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=springer .
Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printedpage of such transmission.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new formsof scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].
Springer is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Journal of Religion and Health.
http://www.jstor.org
http://www.jstor.org/stable/27511642?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=springerhttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=springerhttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/stable/27511642?origin=JSTOR-pdf -
8/9/2019 Are Religious Women More Likely to Have Breast Cancer Screening
2/15
Journal of Religion and Health, Vol. 41, No. 4,Winter 2002 (? 2002)
Are Religious Women
More Likely to Have
Breast Cancer
Screening?
PETER H. VAN NESS, STANISLAV V. KASL,and BETH A. JONES
ABSTRACT The study objective was to investigate whether women who frequently attend reli
gious services are more likely to have breast cancer screening?mammography and clinical
breast examinations?than other women. Multivariate logistic regression models show that
white women who attended religious services frequently had more than twice the odds of breast
cancer screening than white women who attended less frequently (Odds Ratio (OR)=
2.61; 95%
Confidence Interval (CI) = 1.12, 6.06). The behavior of white women was different from African
American women (religious attendance-race interaction term p-value = 0.008); African American women who attended religious services frequently were possibly less likely to have breast
cancer screening (OR 0.49; CI= 0.19-1.31).
KEY WORDS: breast cancer; religion; screening; race; African Americans.
The maturity of an area of scientific research is often signaled by the appearance of a synthetic work that documents past accomplishments and identifiesas
yet unanswered questions. Epidemiological researchinto
the relation between religiousness and health now has such a vade mecum in the recentlypublished Handbook of Religion and Health by Koenig, McCullough, and Larson. The study reported here addresses one issue for which they say there is
currently little relevant research. These authors opine: "Because of the strongrelationship between religious attendance and social support, and the strong
relationship between social support and medical compliance and screening,
Peter Van News is a Postdoctoral Fellow in Epidemiology in the Department of Epidemiologyand Public Health at the Yale University School ofMedicine. He is also a Lecturer in ChronicDisease Epidemiology teaching a course entitled "Religion, Health, and Society." Prior to comingto Yale Dr. Van Ness was a professor of the philosophy of religion at Union Theological Seminaryand Columbia University in New York City. Stanislav V. Kasl, Ph.D., is a Professor in the
Chronic Disease Epidemiology Division of the Department of Epidemiology and Public Health atthe Yale University School of Medicine. Beth A. Jones, M.P.H., Ph.D., is an Assistant Professor inthe Chronic Disease Epidemiology Division of the Department of Epidemiology and Public
Health at the Yale University School ofMedicine.
333 ? 2002 Blanton-Peale Institute
-
8/9/2019 Are Religious Women More Likely to Have Breast Cancer Screening
3/15
334 Journal of Religion and Health
organizational types of religious involvement probably increase the likelihood
of early cancer detection and treatment" (Koenig, McCullough, & Larson,2001). Since a previous study by two of us has investigated the relationshipbetween mammography screening and stage at diagnosis (Jones, Kasl, Cur
nen, Owens, & Dubrow, 1995), this report will concentrate on the hypothesisthat religiousness, and specifically, frequent attendance at religious services,is associated with higher rates of breast cancer screening involving mam
mography and clinical breast examinations.
In a recent study Paskett et al. investigated the associations between sev
eral measures of religiousness and rates of cervical and breast cancer screen
ing in a mostly African American sample (Paskett, Case, Tatum, Velez, &Wilson, 1999). In multivariate logistic regression analyses they reported no
significant associations between religious predictors and either Pap smear or
mammogram outcomes but they did report that being African American was
associated with a higher probability of obtaining a Pap smear. Results givenbelow present a different picture. There are several ways in which our studyovercomes limitations in the Paskett study. Ours is a statewide populationbased study. We control for important biom?dical covariables and test for in
teractions between the predictor of religious attendance and race and socio
economic covariables. Finally, the hypotheses tested are few and focused sothat results are less vulnerable to challenge on the grounds of multiple com
parisons.The primary hypothesis for this study is that frequency of religious atten
dance is positively associated with rates of breast cancer screening. A second
ary hypothesis is that levels of social support mediate the effect of religiousattendance on breast cancer screening. These two hypotheses reflect the
thinking of Koenig, McCullough, and Larson (see Diagram 1). Our own pointof view is that race and socioeconomic status may be modifiers of the religious
attendance/screening relationshipas
theyare of some other known
predictorsof breast cancer screening (Pearlman, Rakowski, B., & Clark, 1996) (Phillips& Wilbur, 1995) (Freeman, 1989). Also, our previous study of religion andbreast cancer survival in this sample showed race to be an important covariable (Van Ness, Kasl, & Jones). Accordingly, it is appropriate that we test theabove hypotheses in a data set originally assembled for the purpose of detect
ing race differences.
Methods
Population. Subject enrollment and study design have been described pre
viously (Jones et al., 1995) (Jones, Kasl, Curnen, Owens, & Dubrow, 1997).
Briefly, cases were identified through active surveillance of 22 Connecticut
hospitals. Data from the Connecticut Tumor Registry for 1984-1985 indi
-
8/9/2019 Are Religious Women More Likely to Have Breast Cancer Screening
4/15
Peter H. Van Ness, Stanislav V. Kasl, and Beth A. Jones 335
DIAGRAM 1
Schematic Representation of Hypothesis of Koenig et al.
Regarding the Association of Religious Attendance and Breast
Cancer Screening
ReligiousAttendance
Breast
Cancer
Screening
Stage at
Diagnosis
cated that approximately 98% of African-American and 84% of White breastcancer cases had been diagnosed in the participating hospitals. The study
population was composed of 145 (45%) African-American women and 177
(55%) White women diagnosed with a first primary breast cancer in Connecticut between January 1987 and March 1989. All eligible African-Americanbreast cancer cases diagnosed in these hospitals were selected for possibleinterview. A White breast cancer case was randomly selected using a com
puterized random digit generator from among all eligible White breast cancer
cases, diagnosed in the same hospital, and within the same one to three week
period,as the
eligibleAfrican-American case. A 1:1 ratio of African-American
and White cases was sought in order to meet the original objective of identifying factors explaining race differences in stage at diagnosis.
Ineligibility criteria included previous malignancy (same or different site),race other than African-American or White, race unknown, and age greaterthan 79. The respondent verified race at the time of the interview. Partici
pants were interviewed in their homes using a standardized instrument, administered by trained interviewers. The instrument was a modified version ofthe questionnaire used in the National Cancer Institute (NCI) Black/WhiteCancer Survival Study and covered a wide range of demographic, health his
tory, medical care, and psychosocial factors (Ries, Pollack, & Young, 1983).
Among eligible subjects selected for enrollment the participation rate was 76
percent and did not differ significantly by race. Non-participants included
persons who refused (including physician refusals to allow contact), moved,died before they could be interviewed, or were too ill to be interviewed.
-
8/9/2019 Are Religious Women More Likely to Have Breast Cancer Screening
5/15
336 Journal of Religion and Health
Active surveillance identified the hospitals at which cases were diagnosed.
Hospital medical records were abstracted for each case to provide completeinformation on medical history. Photocopies of pathology, operative, and stag
ing reports, admission notes, discharge summaries, and referral correspondence were obtained. Further information was obtained when necessary from
physicians' office records. Since cases were population-based and were identified by active surveillance, and since we considered only screening ratherthan diagnostic examinations, the screening experience of breast cancer cases
should be representative of screening experience in the general population.
Predictors. Three measures of religiousness were used as predictor variables. One inquired about religious denominational preference and is re
ported here as Protestant, Roman Catholic, Pentecostal, Jewish, and no denominational affiliation. The Pentecostal grouping combines the responses"Pentecostal" or "Holiness." This combination is justified by the similar historical origins of the two groups and by their enduring emphasis on the giftsof the Holy Spirit including healing (Marty, 1997) (Raboteau, 1998). A second
measure inquired about religious attendance (less than weekly vs. weekly ormore frequently). A third, representing the respondent's religious social net
work, measured the number of congregants known personally (noneor
a fewvs. almost all).
Outcomes. The primary outcome variable was breast cancer screening status prior to diagnosis. It recorded whether or not a respondent followed publichealth recommendations that women receive periodic mammograms and breastexaminations from a physician (Breast Cancer Facts and Figures, 2000-2001,2001). A respondent was counted as having received breast cancer screeningif she answered affirmatively to both of two inquiries, one asking "Did you
have a mammogram within the last threeyears?"
and the otherasking
"Did
you have a breast exam by a doctor within the last two years?"
Covariables. The demographic covariables included in descriptive and multivariate analyses were: age (continuous); race (White vs. African American);
marital status (married vs. not married); socioeconomic status: education(
-
8/9/2019 Are Religious Women More Likely to Have Breast Cancer Screening
6/15
Peter H. Van Ness, Stanislav V. Kasl, and Beth A. Jones 337
(Jones et al., 1995) (Jones et al., 1997) (Van Ness et al.) The comorbidity
index was created from interview responses to questions regarding 22 common conditions. Specifically, respondents were asked if a doctor had told
them in the year before their diagnosis that they had any of 22 common con
ditions. The variable for self-rated health consisted of levels of poor, fair,
good, and excellent.
Respondents were asked whether or not they occasionally drank any kindof alcoholic beverage, and whether they had ever regularly smoked cigarettesfor more than six months and whether they smoked regularly when interviewed. Two medical care covariables were examined. One recorded whetheror not the
respondenthad a usual source of care.
Several questions inquiredabout a respondent's insurance coverage. An index was created from the re
sponses and then was dichotomized as those having no or poor insurance
coverage versus those having adequate insurance coverage. A social supportvariable was created to account for the mediating role proposed for it by Koe
nig et al. Respondents were identified as having a high degree of social support if they said that they knew all or almost all of the members of theircongregation and if they agreed with the statement that they were able totalk with their friends about cancer.
Statistical analysis. Hypotheses were examined using multivariate logisticregression. Predictor variables were forced into multivariate models. Controlvariables were included only if they approached significance (p < 0.25) or had
conceptual relevance. Model pruning was done in order to avoid collinearityand over-fitting. The model fitting approach used was manual backwardelimination. Linearity tests were performed for continuous variables, i.e., age,education, self-rated health, and the comorbidity index, to ensure that there
was a generally linear relationship between the predictor and outcome variables. In the absence of a linear relationship the education variable was dichotomized at 12 years.
A supplementary analysis involved a weighted logistic regression model.
Weights were assigned to each White respondent in order to compensate forthe oversampling of African Americans in the original data set. Specifically,
African American respondents received a weight of 1 and White respondentsreceived a weight of 14 in order to compensate for the fact that only some ofthe White cases of breast cancer reported in Connecticut during the enroll
ment period were randomly selected for inclusion in the study. The samplingweight of 14 for Whites is warranted given that participation rates for Afri
can Americans were somewhat lower and incidence rates of breast cancer forAfrican Americans are somewhat lower than for Whites (Kelsey & Bernstein,1996). The 1990 census records a 10.43 to 1 ratio of Whites to African Americans in Connecticut (The 1990 Census, 1990).
Stratification and clustering were not included as part of the original sam
pling design. However, control variables for the hospitals from which cases
-
8/9/2019 Are Religious Women More Likely to Have Breast Cancer Screening
7/15
-
8/9/2019 Are Religious Women More Likely to Have Breast Cancer Screening
8/15
Peter H. Van Ness, Stanislav V. Kasl, and Beth A. Jones 339
TABLE 1
Descriptive Characteristics of Breast Cancer Cases
in Connecticut, January 1987 to March 1989 includingUnadjusted Associations with Breast Cancer Screening
(Odds Ratios as Measure of Association)
Variable OR Variable OR
55.36
(Mean)
177
145
ReligiousDenomination
Protestant 165Roman Catholic 102Jewish 11Pentecostal 25
None 11Attendance
Weekly 168
DemographicAge
Race
White
African AmericanMarital Status
No 162Yes 160
Education (years)12 243
Income
Low 152High 133Missing 37
Occupational Rank
BelowMedian 156
Above Median 149Outcome
ScreeningNo 222Yes 93
Biom?dical
Self-Rated Health 2.78 0.81 1.47*52.5 1.00 (Mean) (S.D.)32.5 0.97 l:Poor 22 7.0
3.5 2.10 2: Fair 78 24.98.0 0.66 3: Good 159 50.83.5 3.03 4: Excellent 54 17.3
Severe Obesity44.9 1.00 No 271 84.7 1.0055.1 1.08 Yes 49 15.3 0.89
12.33 0.97** Comorbidity 2.83 2.11 1.06(S.D.) Index (Mean) (S.D.)
Behavioral55.0 1.00 Alcohol Drinker
45.0 0.74 No 92 28.9 1.00Yes 26 71.1 2.13*50.3 1.00 Smoking49.7 1.41 Never 138 43.4 1.00
Past 114 36.2 1.97*24.5 1.00 Current 65 20.4 1.0575.5 2.67** Social Support
Low 177 56.4 1.0047.2 1.00 High 137 43.6 0.8941.3 1.91* Medical Care11.5 0.81 Insurance
None/Poor 176 55.3 1.0051.2 1.00 Good 142 44.7 1.4648.8 1.79* Usual Care
No06 33.5 1.00Yes210 66.5 4.42***
70.5 ?
29.5 ?a
"This is the outcome variable for which other variables are predictors.
*p < 0.05; **p < 0.01; ***p < 0.001.
less frequently. The odds ratio for African Americans suggests that those who
attend religious services regularly are about one-half as likely to receivebreast cancer screening as are those African Americans who attend less regu
larly. Unlike the odds ratio for the Whites this last cited odds ratio does notmeet the 0.05 level of statistical significance. Again, social support is not significantly related to breast cancer screening.
When the same logistic regression model is run for a weighted sample that
-
8/9/2019 Are Religious Women More Likely to Have Breast Cancer Screening
9/15
340 Journal of Religion and Health
TABLE 2
Correlation Matrix of Variables Relevant to the HypothesisRegarding the Association of Religious Attendance and
Breast Cancer Screening
Variable0Religious Social
Attendance Race Support Screening
Religious Attendance
KWeekly vs.>
Weekly)
Race (White vs. AfricanAmerican)
Social Support (Low vs.
High)Breast Cancer Screening
(No vs. Yes)
1.00
0.16**
0.37***
0.02
0.16**
1.00
0.12*
-0.07
0.37***
0.12*
1.00
-0.03
0.02
-0.07
-0.03
1.00
"For these dichotomous variables the first category is coded as 0 and the second as 1.
*p < 0.05; **p < 0.01; ***p < 0.001.
approximates the 1990 ratio of Whites and African Americans in the Connecticut population, the religious attendance-race interaction term is no longersignificant because of the high proportion of Whites. (The more appropriatetest for race as an effect modifier is contained in the previously reported
model in which White and African American groups are approximately equalin size.) When the interaction term is removed, the religious attendance variable is still associated with breast cancer screening in a significant way (OR
=
2.41; 95% CI= 1.21-4.82). Again, this odds ratio mostly reflects the experi
ence of Whites who are represented heavily in the sample. This association is
maintained for White weighting ranging from 10 to 14. Thus the positiveassociation of frequent religious attendance and high rates of breast cancer
screening is present in this more representative weighted sample that accords better with the general character of the hypothesis of Koenig et al.
In order to try to understand the reasons for the religious attendance-raceinteraction two additional variables were examined. A strong positive predictor of breast cancer screening is whether or not physicians recommend that
patients receive such care (Mandelblatt, Traxler, Lakin, Kanetsky, & Kao,1992) (Vernon et al, 1992) (Stein, Fox, & Murata, 1991). (In our data the
unadjusted OR = 9.33 and the 95% CI = 4.47, 19.49; this variable is notassociated with religious attendance in the total sample and so is not a potential confounder of the religious attendance/breast cancer screening association.) In responding to the question as to whether or not they had received a
physician's recommendation for a mammogram, 68.4% of the Whites and 53.5%of the African Americans responded affirmatively (x2
=7.45, p
= 0.006).
-
8/9/2019 Are Religious Women More Likely to Have Breast Cancer Screening
10/15
Peter H. Van Ness, Stanislav V Kasl, and Beth A. Jones 341
TABLE 3
Multivariate Analysis of the Association Between ReligiousAttendance and Breast Cancer Screening
Variable Odds Ratio
95%Confidence
Interval P-Value
ReligiousReligious Attendance-Race Interaction
?a ?a 0.008
Religious Attendance ?a ?ab
(
-
8/9/2019 Are Religious Women More Likely to Have Breast Cancer Screening
11/15
342 Journal ofReligion and Health
Thus Whites were recommended for mammograms at a significantly higher
rate than African Americans. Furthermore,for Whites
physicianrecommen
dations were virtually the same for religious service attendees and nonat
tendees; however, for African Americans religious service nonattendees were
more likely to get physician recommendations for mammography than were
attendees (62.0% versus 50.0%). These differences are compatible with physician recommendations partially explaining the religious attendance-race in
teraction.A strong negative predictor of cancer screening is a question that measures
fatalism about the occurrence and outcome of cancer (In our data the unad
justedOR = 0.38 and the 95% CI =
0.20, 0.73;this variable is not associ
ated with religious attendance in the total sample and so is not a potentialconfounder of the religious attendance/breast cancer screening association.)Some might speculate that African American religiousness engenders greaterfatalism when women contemplate and confront breast cancer. Althoughthere may be some evidence to support it (Matthews, Lannin, & Mitchell,1994) (Lannin et al., 1998) (Gregg & Curry, 1994), this speculation is not inaccord with the overall tenor of African American Christianity that has gen
erally been an empowering force for the African American community (Lincoln & Mamiya, 1990). It is also not supported by respondents' answers to
the above-cited question measuring fatalism. Specifically, they were askedwhether they agreed with the statement "Before my illness, I thought that ifI'm going to get cancer, I'm going to get it, so I pretty much ignored it." Inanswer to this question 28.9% of Whites agreed while only 21.6% of African
Americans agreed (x2=
2.17, p= 0.141). Furthermore, among Whites 32.9%
of attendees but only 25.9% of nonattendees agreed with the fatalistic sentiments of the question. Yet among African Americans 18.2% of attendees affirmed fatalistic sentiments while 25.5% of the nonattendees did. These differences are opposite to what might explain the religious attendance-race
interaction.
Discussion
The results of this study provide some support for the hypothesis of Koenig etal. that higher levels of organized religiousness are associated with higherrates of cancer screening, thereby offering the possibility of earlier detectionand treatment. This support is qualified, though, by the role of race as a
significant effect modifier. Only Whites attending religious services frequently show the desirable outcome of increased rates of breast cancer
screening. The authors' above quoted hypothesis is further qualified by theabsence of evidence that social support is a mediator of the religious attendance/breast cancer screening association. It is possible that the measure of
-
8/9/2019 Are Religious Women More Likely to Have Breast Cancer Screening
12/15
Peter H. Van Ness, Stanislav V. Kasl, and Beth A. Jones 343
social support employed was not sufficiently detailed or appropriate to detectthis effect. Hence the lack of evidence for mediation
reportedhere does not
preclude that some other measure of social support might yield different re
sults.Additional analyses suggest that lower rates of breast cancer screening
among African Americans religious attendees are accompanied by lowerlevels of physician mammography recommendations for African American
women generally and especially for African American women attending reli
gious services frequently. On the other hand, there is no evidence that lowerrates of breast cancer screening among African American women are accom
panied by religious fatalism. In fact, African American women seemed less
likely to give fatalistic responses than White women and frequent AfricanAmerican church attendees were less fatalistic that similarly religious
Whites to a statistically significant degree.Addressing health promotion programs to religious communities is an in
creasingly common public health practice (Ransdell & Rehling, 1996). Researchers have not been quick to observe or appreciate this development; for
instance, the new Institute of Medicine report on public health interventionsextols multi-level, community strategies yet fails to mention religion or reli
gious communities in their recommendations and rarely mentions them in
accompanying commentary (Smedley & Syme, 2000). Textbook authors mostoften mention religion in the context of health promotion efforts in minoritycommunities (Emmons, 2000) (Wingood & Keltner, 1999). In their recent review of Church-Based Health Promotion (CBHP) programs Ransdell and
Rehling also report that "the majority of published papers described comprehensive programs within the African American community." Decisions to locate health promotion and screening programs in African American churchesdo not appear to be based upon clear evidence of a positive association between some aspect of African American religiousness and rates of cancer
screening. Results from this study, however, provide evidence that efforts topromote breast cancer screening might find a positive response among
Whites attending religious services frequently because they engage in breastcancer screening more than their counterparts who attend less frequently ornot at all. Further gains in breast cancer screening or in related preventivehealth practices would likely be attained if public health practitioners mountinformative and sensitive health promotion efforts for this community.
Study results also indicate the need to understand the demonstrated dis
parity in breast cancer screening rates between African Americans and Whiteswho attend
religiousservices
frequently.If the low rates of breast cancer
screening among African American women who attend religious services fre
quently are not due to some aspect of their religiousness, e.g., religious fatal
ism, but are partially explained by an aspect of the patient-physician interac
tion, e.g., low level of physician recommendations for such screening, then it
-
8/9/2019 Are Religious Women More Likely to Have Breast Cancer Screening
13/15
344 Journal of Religion and Health
is possible that a culturally sensitive and specific health promotion effort di
rected toward African American religious communities could be successful inraising screening rates. Efforts to measure the effectiveness of church-basedbreast cancer education programs are just beginning (Davis et al., 1994)
(Dacey Allen, Sorensen, Peterson, Stoddard, & Colditz, 2001).The major strength of this study is that the data set allows for an analysis
of racial differences in breast cancer screening behavior. A second strength of
the study is that it provides data to carry out supplementary analyses exam
ining the possible roles of physician recommendations for mammography and
fatalistic attitudes?two strong influences on breast cancer screening. The
sample size of the study is modest, limiting the ability to perform subgroupanalyses other than White/African American comparisons. Examining onlythe screening experience of women diagnosed with breast cancer might be a
limitation but in this case it allows for comparisons with other studies of thesame cohort dealing with stage at diagnosis and survival outcomes.
Acknowledgments
The authors acknowledge with appreciation the assistance of Fenghai Duan.The research was partially supported by a National Institute of Mental
Health grant MH14235-24. It was also supported by National Cancer Institute program policy grant 5-PO1-CA42101, Agency for Health Care Policyand Research grant HS 06910-01, Research Training in the Epidemiology of
Aging Grant 2-T32-Ag00153.The authors thank the following Connecticut institutions for their partici
pation in the study. Hartford Hospital, Yale-New Haven Hospital, BridgeportHospital, Waterbury Hospital, Hospital of St. Raphael, New Britain General
Hospital,Norwalk
Hospital,St. Vincent's Medical
Center,The Stamford Hos
pital, Middlesex Hospital, Mt. Sinai Hospital, St. Mary's Hospital, Lawrence& Memorial Hospital, Manchester Hospital, Greenwich Hospital Association,Veterans Memorial Medical Center, Bristol Hospital, St. Francis Hospital andMedical Center, St. Joseph Medical Center, University of Connecticut HealthCenter/John Dempsey Hospital, Park City Hospital, and William W. Backus
Hospital.
References
The 1990 Census. United States Census Bureau 1990 [cited. Available from http://www.census.gov/prod/cenl990/cpl/cp- l-8.pdf.
Breast Cancer Facts and Figures, 2000-2001.2001.: American Cancer Society.Dacey Allen, J., G. Sorensen, K. Peterson, A.M. Stoddard, and G. Colditz. 2001. Reach Out for
Health: a church-based pilot breast cancer education program, in review.
Davis, D.T., Bustamante, A., C.P. Brown, G. Wolde-Tsadik, E.W. Savage, X. Cheng, and L. How
-
8/9/2019 Are Religious Women More Likely to Have Breast Cancer Screening
14/15
Peter H. Van Ness, Stanislav V. Kasl, and Beth A. Jones 345
land. 1994. The urban church and cancer control: a source of social influence in minority com
munities. Public Health Rep. 109:500-06.Emmons, Karen M. 2000. Health Behaviors in a Social Context. In Social Epidemiology, edited
by L. F. Berkman and I. Kawachi. New York: Oxford University Press.
Freeman, H.P. 1989. Cancer in the socioeconomically disadvantaged. Ca-A Cancer Journal forClinicians 39:266-288.
Gregg, J. and R.H. Curry. 1994. Explanatory models for cancer among African American women
at two Atlanta neighborhood health centers: the implications for a cancer screening program.Social Science and Medicine 39 (4):519-26.
Jones, Beth A., Stanislav V. Kasl, Mary G. M. Curnen, Patricia H. Owens, and Robert Dubrow.1995. Can mammography screening explain the race difference in state at diagnosis of breastcancer? Cancer 75.8:2103-13.
Jones, Beth A., Stanislav V. Kasl, Mary G. McCrea Curnen, Patricia H. Owens, and Robert
Dubrow. 1997. Severe obesityas an
explanatory factor for black/white difference in stage atdiagnosis of breast cancer. American Journal of Epidemiology 146.5:394-404.
Kelsey, Jennifer L., and Leslie Bernstein. 1996. Epidemiology and Prevention of Breast Cancer.Annual Review of Public Health 17:47-67.
Koenig, Harold G., Michael E. McCullough, and David B. Larson. 2001. Handbook of Religionand Health. New York: Oxford University Press.
Lannin, Donald R., Holly F. Mathews, Jim Mitchell, Melvin S. Swanson, Frances H. Swanson,and Maxine S. Edwards. 1998. Influence of socioeconomic and cultural factors on racial differences in late-stage presentation of breast cancer. JAMA 279 (22):1801-07.
Lincoln, Eric and Lawrence H. Mamiya. 1990. The Black Church in the African American Experience. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.
Mandelblatt, J., M. Traxler, P. Lakin, P. Kanetsky, and R. Kao. 1992. Mammography and Papanicolaou smear use by elderly poor black women: The Harlem Study Team. Journal of the
American Geriatrics Society 40 (10):1001-7.
Marty, Martin E. 1997. Modern American Religion: The Irony of It All (1893-1919). 4 vols. Vol. 1.
Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Matthews, H.F., D.R. Lannin, and J.P. Mitchell. 1994. Coming to terms with advanced breastcancer: black women's narratives from Eastern North Carolina. Social Science and Medicine38 (6):789-800.
Najjar, M.F., and M. Rowland. 1987. Anthropom?trie reference data and prevalence of overweight,United States, 1976-1980, Vital and health statistics, Series 11: Data from the National Health
Survey, no. 238). Hyattsville, MD: National Center for Health Statistics.
Paskett, Electra D., L. Douglas Case, Cathy Tatum, Ramon Velez, and Alma Wilson. 1999. Reli
giosity and cancer screening. Journal of Religion and Health 38 (1):39-51.
Pearlman, D.N., W. Rakowski, Ehrich B., and M.A. Clark. 1996. Breast cancer screening practices among black, Hispanic, and white women: reassessing differences. American Journal of
Preventive Medicine 12 (5):327-37.
Phillips, J.M., and J. Wilbur. 1995. Adherence to breast cancer screening guidelines among African-American women of differing employment status. Cancer Nursing 18 (4):258-69.
Raboteau, Albert J. 1998. The Afro-American Traditions. In Caring and Curing: Health andMedicine in the Western Religious Traditions, edited by R. L. Numbers and D. W. Amundsen.Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.
Ransdell, L.B. and S.L. Rehling. 1996. Church-based health promotion: a review of the currentliterature. American Journal of Health Behavior 20 (4): 195-207.
Ries, L.G., E.S. Pollack, and J.L. Young, Jr. 1983. Cancer patient survival: Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results Program, 1973-79. Journal of the National Cancer Institute 70:693707.
SAS/STAT User's Guide 1999. Cary, NC: SAS Institute.Smedley, Brian D. and S. Leonard Syme. 2000. Introduction. In Promoting Health: InterventionStrategies from Social and Behavioral Research. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
Stein, J.A., S.A. Fox, and P.J. Murata. 1991. The influence of ethnicity, socioeconomic status, and
psychological barriers on use of mammography. Journal of Health & Social Behavior 32 (2):101-13.
Van Ness, Peter H., Stanislav V. Kasl, and Beth A. Jones. Religion, race, and breast cancer
survival, in review.
-
8/9/2019 Are Religious Women More Likely to Have Breast Cancer Screening
15/15
346 Journal of Religion and Health
Vernon, S.W., V.G. Vogel, S. Halabi, G.L. Jackson, R.O. Lundy, and G.N. Peters. 1992. Breastcancer
screening behaviorsand
attitudesin three racial/ethnic
groups.Cancer 69
(l):165-74.Wingood, Gina M., and Betty Keltner. 1999. Sociocultural Factors and Prevention Programs Af
fecting the Health of Ethnic Minorities. In Handbook ofHealth Promotion and Disease Prevention, edited by J. M. Raczynski and R. J. DiClemente. New York: Kluwer Academic/Plenum
Publishers.