Literature DB >> 1434956

Adherence to screening flexible sigmoidoscopy in asymptomatic patients.

R B Kelly1, J C Shank.   

Abstract

The purpose of this study was to assess patient adherence to physician-recommended screening flexible sigmoidoscopy. In the setting of a family practice residency program, adherence rates in asymptomatic patients (N = 333, age > or = 50 years) were compared among a Usual Care Group; an Intervention Group that received educational materials and a phone reminder; and a Continuity Group, which had longstanding continuity with a single physician. Data from mailed questionnaires (N = 180) were used to examine the associations of demographic factors and attitudes with adherence. Adherence was 30.3% overall, with a nonsignificant increase in the Intervention Group compared with the Usual Care Group. In a pooled analysis of the Usual Care and Continuity Groups, the half of the sample with the highest continuity had a significantly higher adherence rate than the rest of the sample (45%; P < 0.001). In a discriminant analysis (78% correct classification, P < 0.001) two history variables (family history of cancer; family history of colon problems), one measure of continuity (number of physician visits), one demographic variable (lower household income), and two attitudinal factors (perception of how painful flexible sigmoidoscopy would be; perception of how well the physician explained its importance) made statistically significant contributions to the prediction of adherence. Results of the study show that screening flexible sigmoidoscopy is acceptable to asymptomatic patients, and that continuity is likely to have a positive impact on adherence. Because attitudes offer the potential for modification, we suggest that physicians reassure patients that flexible sigmoidoscopy is not unduly painful and discuss with patients individually its importance to their health.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  1992        PMID: 1434956     DOI: 10.1097/00005650-199211000-00006

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Med Care        ISSN: 0025-7079            Impact factor:   2.983


  25 in total

Review 1.  Interventions to promote repeat breast cancer screening with mammography: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Authors:  Sally W Vernon; Amy McQueen; Jasmin A Tiro; Deborah J del Junco
Journal:  J Natl Cancer Inst       Date:  2010-06-29       Impact factor: 13.506

Review 2.  Individual-level factors in colorectal cancer screening: a review of the literature on the relation of individual-level health behavior constructs and screening behavior.

Authors:  Marc T Kiviniemi; Alyssa Bennett; Marie Zaiter; James R Marshall
Journal:  Psychooncology       Date:  2010-10-27       Impact factor: 3.894

3.  Telephone outreach to increase colorectal cancer screening in an urban minority population.

Authors:  Charles E Basch; Randi L Wolf; Corey H Brouse; Celia Shmukler; Alfred Neugut; Lawrence T DeCarlo; Steven Shea
Journal:  Am J Public Health       Date:  2006-10-31       Impact factor: 9.308

4.  Overcoming poor attendance to first scheduled colonoscopy: a randomized trial of peer coach or brochure support.

Authors:  Barbara J Turner; Mark Weiner; Sheila D Berry; Karen Lillie; Kevin Fosnocht; Christopher S Hollenbeak
Journal:  J Gen Intern Med       Date:  2007-11-21       Impact factor: 5.128

5.  No association between colorectal cancer worry and screening uptake in Appalachian Ohio.

Authors:  Adana A Llanos; Michael L Pennell; Gregory S Young; Cathy M Tatum; Mira L Katz; Electra D Paskett
Journal:  J Public Health (Oxf)       Date:  2014-05-20       Impact factor: 2.341

6.  Facilitating factors for colorectal cancer screening.

Authors:  Corey H Brouse; Randi L Wolf; Charles E Basch
Journal:  J Cancer Educ       Date:  2008 Jan-Mar       Impact factor: 2.037

7.  Predictors of nonadherence to screening colonoscopy.

Authors:  Thomas D Denberg; Trisha V Melhado; John M Coombes; Brenda L Beaty; Kenneth Berman; Tim E Byers; Alfred C Marcus; John F Steiner; Dennis J Ahnen
Journal:  J Gen Intern Med       Date:  2005-11       Impact factor: 5.128

8.  Screening sigmoidoscopy. Factors associated with utilization.

Authors:  S F Lewis; N M Jensen
Journal:  J Gen Intern Med       Date:  1996-09       Impact factor: 5.128

9.  Acceptance of colonoscopy requires more than test tolerance.

Authors:  Amanda Condon; Lesley Graff; Lawrence Elliot; Alexandra Ilnyckyj
Journal:  Can J Gastroenterol       Date:  2008-01       Impact factor: 3.522

Review 10.  Does colorectal cancer risk perception predict screening behavior? A systematic review and meta-analysis.

Authors:  Thomas M Atkinson; Talya Salz; Kaitlin K Touza; Yuelin Li; Jennifer L Hay
Journal:  J Behav Med       Date:  2015-08-18
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.