Beenken, Madison

ABSTRACT Purpose This study assesses the association between colorectal cancer (CRC) screening and a validated, housing-based measure of individual-level socioeconomic status (SES, called HOUSES hereafter) within rural communities and determines whether HOUSES-integrated geospatial analysis can be used to tailor interventions. Methods We used CRC screening data from a subset of Mayo Clinic Midwest patients living in cities without ready access to routine care in the Mayo Clinic Health System in 2019 to represent rural communities. At the individual level, we assessed the association between CRC screening rates and the HOUSES index, adjusting for age, sex, race/ethnicity, comorbidity, distance from home address to clinic, and area deprivation index, using a multilevel mixed-effects logistic regression model. Additionally, we conducted geospatial analysis to examine the correlation between hotspots of 1) lower CRC screening rates and 2) lower SES of the subject population (HOUSES quartile 1). Findings Among 34,489 individuals (median age 64.0 years, 52.4% female), those with the lowest SES (HOUSES Q1) had 37% lower odds of being CRC screening adherent than those with the highest SES (HOUSES Q4) (adj. OR [95% CI]: 0.63 [0.58-0.69]). In the 14 identified HOUSES Q1 hotspots, there was a significant correlation in counts of HOUSES Q1 and low CRC screening (correlation coefficient=0.81). Conclusion Lower SES was significantly associated with lower CRC screening among rural populations. HOUSES-enabled geospatial analysis identified geographic hotspots with lower CRC screening rates for targeted interventions to address disparities in CRC screening in rural communities. HOUSES may be a useful digital tool for cancer preventive care and research.

Introduction Women residing in rural areas or belonging to lower socioeconomic status (SES) strata experience disproportionately low rates of breast cancer screening, contributing to delayed diagnoses and poorer prognoses. In addition, their participation in clinical trials remains markedly limited, reducing opportunities to access preventive and screening interventions. Promoting research preparedness among women before disease onset may empower them to make informed decisions regarding their health and willingness to participate in clinical research with fewer emotional and logistical barriers. Methods and analysis This project applies a community-based participatory research approach to develop and refine the WeCARE (Women’s Engagement for Cancer Awareness, Resources and Education) intervention for women aged 50–74 years who have either never undergone breast cancer screening or have not received screening in the past 5 years and who reside in rural areas or belong to low SES groups. The intervention consists of two components. Component 1 is a single-day, in-person community forum that includes (a) an educational seminar led by an oncologist to address breast cancer risk and screening guidelines, (b) survivor storytelling to enhance emotional engagement and cultural resonance and (c) facilitated navigation to breast cancer screening and future research participation. Component 2 involves structured post-forum follow-up through multiple touchpoints (phone calls and mailed boosters) to reinforce knowledge, address barriers and support screening completion and research enrolment. Quantitative data (eg, screening completion, satisfaction and follow-up engagement) will be summarised using descriptive statistics to assess feasibility and reach on 50 participants. Qualitative feedback from participants will undergo thematic analysis to identify barriers, facilitators and perceived cultural relevance. Integrated mixed-method interpretation will inform iterative refinement of the WeCARE intervention and guide design of subsequent larger trials. Ethics and dissemination Approved by the Mayo Clinic Institutional Review Board (IRB #25–008934). All participants will provide informed consent. Procedures ensure confidentiality, cultural sensitivity and participant safety. Data will be stored in REDCap and disseminated through publications, conferences, local town halls and community reports.

ABSTRACT Importance Rural-urban disparities in chronic disease prevalence are well established; however, the extent to which individual-level socioeconomic status (SES) contributes to these disparities remains unclear. Objective To examine the associations of rurality and SES with the prevalence of five most burdensome chronic diseases among adults. Design We conducted a retrospective cross-sectional study of adults across 27 Upper Midwest counties using the Expanded Rochester Epidemiology Project (E-REP) medical record data linkage system to evaluate associations between rurality, SES and chronic disease prevalence. Prevalence of clinically diagnosed asthma, diabetes, hypertension, coronary heart disease, and mood disorders was identified from International Classification of Diseases ICD9/10 codes over a five-year period (2014-2019). Setting Population based Participants Adults over 18 years residing in the 27 E-REP counties, excluding those missing rural-urban residence status. Exposure HOUSES index, an individual-level measure of SES, served as the primary measure, while rurality based on Rural Urban Commuting Area (RUCA) codes 4-10 was the secondary measure. Main Outcome Prevalence of the five clinically diagnosed chronic diseases was identified using ICD9/10 codes from 2014–2019. Mixed effect logistic regression models were used and adjusted for demographics and general medical examination receipt, to assess rural-urban and SES differences for prevalence of each chronic disease. Results Among 455,802 adults with available HOUSES index, 42.8% lived in rural areas, 53.8% were female and 87.4% were non-Hispanic White. In the unadjusted analysis, rural and urban populations showed comparable asthma and CHD prevalence, while mood disorders, hypertension, and diabetes were more common in urban areas. After adjusting for demographic factors and healthcare utilization, rural-urban differences were no longer statistically significant, whereas SES remained strongly associated with all diseases in a dose response manner (e.g., adjusted Odds Ratio for hypertension (ref: HOUSES index Q4): 1.14, 1.27, and 1.42 for HOUSES index Q3, Q2, and Q1, respectively). Conclusions and Relevance Individual-level SES measured by the HOUSES index, was more strongly associated with chronic disease prevalence than rurality, supporting its integration into population health assessment and risk stratification.

Abstract Introduction: The National Cancer Institute estimated almost 317,000 new breast cancer and over 13,000 new cervical cancer cases in 2025. While the National Breast and Cervical Cancer Early Detection Program has served millions of women over the past two decades, inequities in cancer screening, subsequently delayed diagnosis, and timely and appropriate treatment remain a public health challenge in the United States. Despite the substantial impact of social determinants of health (SDOH) on cancer screening, few studies have accounted for SDOH at the individual level when assessing breast and cervical cancer screening adherence. The primary objective of this study is to examine whether the individual-level SDOH, measured using HOUsing-based SocioEconomic Status (HOUSES) index, is associated with breast and cervical cancer screening non-adherence (not current on respective USPSTF recommendations for age and frequency). Methods: In this retrospective study, patients were identified as those receiving primary care in the Mayo Clinic Health System and Mayo Clinic (Rochester, MN). The Midwest Quality Metrics panel was then used to assess patients due for screening for breast or cervical cancer in July 2023. The HOUSES, using home address and publicly available data on the residence which measures and categorizes housing status into quartiles, was obtained using the electronic health records (EHRs)-linkable patient-level information. Logistic regression analyses were conducted, controlling for Census block group-level adverse social exposome from the Area Deprivation Index, age, and comorbidities. Results are presented as odds ratios (OR) with corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CI). Results: For breast cancer, among 128,462 eligible patients, 20.1% (n= 25,857) were non-adherent. Compared to the highest HOUSES quartile (Q4), lower HOUSES groups showed significantly higher odds of non-adherence: Q3 OR=1.20 (95% CI=1.15, 1.25), Q2 OR=1.45; (95% CI=1.40, 1.53), and Q1 OR=1.90 (95% CI=1.81, 1.99). For cervical cancer, among 175,712 eligible patients, 29.9% (n=52,533) were non-adherent. Compared to the highest HOUSES quartile (Q4), lower HOUSES groups showed significantly higher odds of non-adherence: Q3 OR=1.07 (95% CI=1.03, 1.10), Q2 OR=1.16; (95% CI=1.12, 1.20), and Q1 OR=1.36 (95% CI=1.31, 1.41). Conclusions: A clinically meaningful association between the HOUSES index and cancer screening adherence was observed. A lower HOUSES index was associated with higher odds of non-adherence for both breast and cervical cancer screening, even after accounting for neighborhood-level risk, age, and comorbidities. Incorporating HOUSES into EHRs can be a practical “screening-for-screening” tool that enables close monitoring of higher-risk patients without additional burden of surveys. Citation Format: Eunice Y. Park, Madison Beenken, Dave Watson, Chung Il Wi, Tufia Haddad, Gladys Asiedu, Karla BALLMAN, James R. Cerhan, Carolyn Flock, Brian Lynch, Folakemi T. Odedina, Scott H. Okuno, Young J Juhn, . HOUSES as a screening tool for cancer screening: Patient-level housing-based socioeconomic status and breast and cervical cancer screening adherence [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the American Association for Cancer Research Annual Meeting 2026; Part 1 (Regular Abstracts); 2026 Apr 17-22; San Diego, CA. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2026;86(7 Suppl):Abstract nr 7599.

Background/Objectives: Individual and increasing numbers of comorbidities have been associated with worse outcomes in patients with fibrotic interstitial lung disease (f-ILD). The association and impact of medical comorbidities on patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) in f-ILD have yet to be reported. Methods: Analysis was conducted using data from a single-center prospective cohort involving 199 patients with f-ILD. All f-ILD diagnoses and severities were screened and enrolled over a three-year study period. Baseline demographics, pulmonary function test (PFT) measures, and survival status were collected. PROMs, including the Chronic Respiratory Questionnaire (CRQ) and the Self-Management Ability Scale (SMAS-30), were assessed at baseline and serially. Thirteen medical comorbidities were evaluated for their prevalence and impact on PROMs and all-cause mortality. Results: Mean age was 69 years, with a female-to-male ratio of 61% vs. 39%. Dyslipidemia (74%) and gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) (71%) were the most prevalent comorbidities. Hypertension, diabetes, GERD, pulmonary hypertension (PH), depression, congestive heart failure (CHF), and obstructive sleep apnea (OSA), were independently associated with lower PROM scores along with increasing numbers of concomitant comorbidities. Increasing numbers of comorbidities, as well as specifically diabetes, PH, hypertension, CHF, and OSA, were associated with greater all-cause mortality. Conclusions: Medical comorbidities may independently impact respiratory-related PROMs in patients with f-ILD. These findings highlight the importance of comprehensive comorbidity management in improving quality of life and survival outcomes in patients with f-ILD.