Parita Patel1, Samuel N Forjuoh, Andrejs Avots-Avotins, Tushar Patel. 1. Department of Family & Community Medicine, Scott & White Clinic, Texas A&M University System Health Science Center College of Medicine, Temple, TX 76508, USA. ppatel@swmail.sw.org
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Although current recommendations advocate screening persons 50 years of age or older for colorectal cancer (CRC), actual screening practice is highly variable among primary care physicians (PCPs). Knowledge of the factors that influence whether or not screening is offered during a clinic visit is essential to develop effective screening strategies. METHODS: A cross-sectional telephone survey of one in four randomly selected patients aged 50 years or older (n = 400) attending a primary care clinic within an integrated health care system in central Texas was conducted. A survey of all PCPs (n = 32) at the practice sites was also administered. RESULTS: The visit type was an important determinant of whether CRC screening was discussed, with most discussion occurring during visits for physicals (P < 0.0001). This finding was corroborated by the physician survey. Patient age and education were also associated with a higher likelihood of having been offered CRC screening (P = 0.009 and 0.014, respectively). Patient race, gender, primary language, PCP, or clinics attended were not significantly associated with the discussion of CRC screening. CONCLUSIONS: Discussions regarding CRC screening are most likely to occur during preventive care visits. Thus, facilitating preventive visits especially for the elderly represents an opportunity to improve CRC screening rates in primary care practice.
BACKGROUND: Although current recommendations advocate screening persons 50 years of age or older for colorectal cancer (CRC), actual screening practice is highly variable among primary care physicians (PCPs). Knowledge of the factors that influence whether or not screening is offered during a clinic visit is essential to develop effective screening strategies. METHODS: A cross-sectional telephone survey of one in four randomly selected patients aged 50 years or older (n = 400) attending a primary care clinic within an integrated health care system in central Texas was conducted. A survey of all PCPs (n = 32) at the practice sites was also administered. RESULTS: The visit type was an important determinant of whether CRC screening was discussed, with most discussion occurring during visits for physicals (P < 0.0001). This finding was corroborated by the physician survey. Patient age and education were also associated with a higher likelihood of having been offered CRC screening (P = 0.009 and 0.014, respectively). Patient race, gender, primary language, PCP, or clinics attended were not significantly associated with the discussion of CRC screening. CONCLUSIONS: Discussions regarding CRC screening are most likely to occur during preventive care visits. Thus, facilitating preventive visits especially for the elderly represents an opportunity to improve CRC screening rates in primary care practice.
Authors: Sarah B Wackerbarth; Yelena N Tarasenko; Laurel A Curtis; Jennifer M Joyce; Steven A Haist Journal: J Gen Intern Med Date: 2007-08-21 Impact factor: 5.128
Authors: Celette Sugg Skinner; Susan M Rawl; Barry K Moser; Adam H Buchanan; Linda L Scott; Victoria L Champion; Joellen M Schildkraut; Giovanni Parmigiani; Shelly Clark; David F Lobach; Lori A Bastian Journal: J Gen Intern Med Date: 2005-04 Impact factor: 5.128
Authors: Douglas M Post; Mira L Katz; Cathy Tatum; Stephanie L Dickinson; Stanley Lemeshow; Electra D Paskett Journal: J Cancer Educ Date: 2008 Impact factor: 2.037
Authors: Shawna V Hudson; Pamela Ohman-Strickland; Regina Cunningham; Jeanne M Ferrante; Karissa Hahn; Benjamin F Crabtree Journal: Cancer Detect Prev Date: 2007-11-26
Authors: Kimberly M Kelly; Stephanie L Dickinson; Cecilia R Degraffinreid; Cathy M Tatum; Electra D Paskett Journal: Am J Health Behav Date: 2007 Sep-Oct
Authors: Carrie N Klabunde; David Lanier; Erica S Breslau; Jane G Zapka; Robert H Fletcher; David F Ransohoff; Sidney J Winawer Journal: J Gen Intern Med Date: 2007-05-30 Impact factor: 5.128
Authors: Berta M Geller; Joan M Skelly; Anne L Dorwaldt; Kathleen D Howe; Greg S Dana; Brian S Flynn Journal: Med Care Date: 2008-09 Impact factor: 2.983