Spatial accessibility to colonoscopy and its role in predicting late-stage colorectal cancer.

Abstract

ObjectiveTo better determine the relationship between spatial access to colonoscopy and colorectal cancer (CRC) outcomes, our objective was to examine the agreement of the classic, enhanced, and variable two‐step floating catchment area (2SFCA) methods in evaluating spatial access to colonoscopy and to compare the predictive validity of each method related to late‐stage CRC. 2SFCA methods simultaneously consider supply/demand of services and impedance (ie, travel time).Data SourcesColonoscopy provider locations were obtained from the South Carolina Ambulatory Surgery Database. ZIP code tabulation area (ZCTA) level population estimates and area‐level poverty level were obtained from the American Community Survey. Rurality was determined by the United States Department of Agriculture's Rural‐Urban Commuting Area codes. Individual‐level CRC data were obtained from the South Carolina Central Cancer Registry.Study DesignUsing the classic, enhanced, and variable 2SFCA methods, we calculated ZCTA‐level spatial access to colonoscopy. We assessed agreement between the three methods by calculating Spearman's rank coefficients and weighted Kappas (Κ). Global and Local Moran's I were used to assess spatial clustering of accessibility scores across 2SFCA methods. We performed multilevel logistic regression analyses to examine the association between spatial accessibility to colonoscopy, area‐ and individual‐level factors, and late‐stage CRC.Principal FindingsWe found strong agreement (Weighted Κ = 0.82; 95% CI = 0.79‐0.86) and identified similar clustering patterns with the classic and enhanced 2SFCA methods. There was negligible agreement among the classic/enhanced 2SFCA and the variable 2SFCA. Across all 2SFCA methods, regression models showed that spatial access to colonoscopy, rurality, and poverty level were not associated with greater odds of late‐stage CRC, though Black race was associated with late‐stage CRC across all models.ConclusionsNone of the 2SFCA methods showed an association with late‐stage CRC. Future studies should explore which elements (spatial or nonspatial) of access to care have the greatest impact on CRC outcomes.