Literature DB >> 17872816

Validation of self-reported history of colorectal cancer screening.

Shariq Khoja1, S Elizabeth McGregor, Robert J Hilsden.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: This study aims to determine the validity of self-reported history of colorectal cancer (CRC) testing consisting of fecal occult blood tests (FOBTs)in the past 2 years or endoscopy (flexible sigmoidoscopy or colonoscopy) in the past 5 years by comparing it with reports provided by physicians.
DESIGN: A cross-sectional design was used for this study.
SETTING: Study participants were selected directly from the city's population. Self-reported history of CRC testing was validated using records obtained from their physicians' offices. PARTICIPANTS: Participants were adults of 50 to 74 years, living within the boundaries of Calgary Health Region in Alberta.
INTERVENTIONS: Participants were recruited by a random-digit dial telephone survey of adults aged 50 to 74 years (n = 598). Following a phased process, a subset of these people (n = 200) agreed to provide names of their physicians to be contacted for their histories of CRC testing. Physicians' reports were used to measure validity of self-reported history. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Agreement between self-reported history and physician's records was measured using kappa statistics and concordance. Validity of self-report was measured by calculating sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive values, and negative predictive values. Reasons for testing reported by the participants were compared with those reported by their physicians.
RESULTS: Complete information was received for 146 participants, revealing a 34.2% testing rate for CRC. Intermediate level of agreement for testing history (kappa = 0.66 and concordance = 84.9%) was found between the 2 types of reporting for CRC testing. Self-reported history showed sensitivity of 76.0% (95% CI = 61.8%-86.9%) and specificity of 89.6% (95% CI = 81.7%-94.9%). High specificity was also observed for self-reporting of the individual tests, but low sensitivity was seen for the reporting of FOBT in the last 2 years. Most participants who correctly recalled the testing history also accurately identified the reason for testing (concordance = 80.0% for FOBT and 69.6% for endoscopy).
CONCLUSION: Self-reported history of CRC testing and physicians' reports showed dependable agreement. Physicians need to probe their patients further for the history of FOBT. These results can be useful in clinical practice to determine the CRC screening status of the patients.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2007        PMID: 17872816      PMCID: PMC1949303     

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Can Fam Physician        ISSN: 0008-350X            Impact factor:   3.275


  13 in total

1.  Comparison of self-reported fecal occult blood testing with automated laboratory records among older women in a health maintenance organization.

Authors:  M T Mandelson; A Z LaCroix; L A Anderson; M R Nadel; N C Lee
Journal:  Am J Epidemiol       Date:  1999-09-15       Impact factor: 4.897

2.  Colorectal cancer screening. Recommendation statement from the Canadian Task Force on Preventive Health Care.

Authors: 
Journal:  CMAJ       Date:  2001-07-24       Impact factor: 8.262

3.  A comparison of self-reported colorectal cancer screening with medical records.

Authors:  Lisa Madlensky; John McLaughlin; Vivek Goel
Journal:  Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev       Date:  2003-07       Impact factor: 4.254

4.  Canadian Association of Gastroenterology and the Canadian Digestive Health Foundation: Guidelines on colon cancer screening.

Authors:  Desmond Leddin; Richard Hunt; Malcolm Champion; Alan Cockeram; Nigel Flook; Michael Gould; Young-In Kim; Jonathan Love; David Morgan; Susan Natsheh; Dan Sadowski
Journal:  Can J Gastroenterol       Date:  2004-02       Impact factor: 3.522

5.  Colorectal screening patterns and perceptions of risk among African-American users of a community health center.

Authors:  I M Lipkus; B K Rimer; P R Lyna; A A Pradhan; M Conaway; C T Woods-Powell
Journal:  J Community Health       Date:  1996-12

6.  A comparison of physician and patient reports of Pap smear histories.

Authors:  S D Walter; E A Clarke; J Hatcher; L W Stitt
Journal:  J Clin Epidemiol       Date:  1988       Impact factor: 6.437

7.  Validation of recall of breast and cervical cancer screening by women in an ethnically diverse population.

Authors:  Stephen J McPhee; Tung T Nguyen; Sarah J Shema; Bang Nguyen; Carol Somkin; Phuong Vo; Rena Pasick
Journal:  Prev Med       Date:  2002-11       Impact factor: 4.018

8.  The accuracy of self-reported Pap smear utilisation.

Authors:  J A Bowman; R Sanson-Fisher; S Redman
Journal:  Soc Sci Med       Date:  1997-04       Impact factor: 4.634

9.  Concordance of self-reported data and medical record audit for six cancer screening procedures.

Authors:  N P Gordon; R A Hiatt; D I Lampert
Journal:  J Natl Cancer Inst       Date:  1993-04-07       Impact factor: 13.506

10.  Quality of cancer registry data: a comparison of data provided by clinicians with those of registration personnel.

Authors:  L J Schouten; J J Jager; P A van den Brandt
Journal:  Br J Cancer       Date:  1993-11       Impact factor: 7.640

View more
  31 in total

1.  Recent trends in breast, cervical, and colorectal cancer screening test utilization in Canada, using self-reported data from 2008 and 2012.

Authors:  D Major; D Armstrong; H Bryant; W Cheung; K Decker; G Doyle; V Mai; C M McLachlin; J Niu; J Payne; N Shukla
Journal:  Curr Oncol       Date:  2015-08       Impact factor: 3.677

2.  Validation of self-reported colorectal cancer screening behaviors among Appalachian residents.

Authors:  Paul L Reiter; Mira L Katz; Jill M Oliveri; Gregory S Young; Adana A Llanos; Electra D Paskett
Journal:  Public Health Nurs       Date:  2013-04-05       Impact factor: 1.462

3.  Examining Adherence With Recommendations for Follow-Up in the Prevention Among Colorectal Cancer Survivors Study.

Authors:  Nikki A Hawkins; Zahava Berkowitz; Juan Rodriguez; Jacqueline W Miller; Susan A Sabatino; Lori A Pollack
Journal:  Oncol Nurs Forum       Date:  2015-05       Impact factor: 2.172

4.  Prevalence and predictors of appropriate colorectal cancer surveillance in Lynch syndrome.

Authors:  Elena M Stoffel; Rowena C Mercado; Wendy Kohlmann; Beth Ford; Shilpa Grover; Peggy Conrad; Amie Blanco; Kristen M Shannon; Mark Powell; Daniel C Chung; Jonathan Terdiman; Stephen B Gruber; Sapna Syngal
Journal:  Am J Gastroenterol       Date:  2010-03-30       Impact factor: 10.864

5.  Association between self-reported depression and screening colonoscopy participation.

Authors:  Audrey H Calderwood; Janine Bacic; Lewis E Kazis; Howard Cabral
Journal:  J Ambul Care Manage       Date:  2013 Oct-Dec

6.  Validity of self-reported colorectal cancer test use in different racial/ethnic groups.

Authors:  Navkiran K Shokar; Sally W Vernon; Carol A Carlson
Journal:  Fam Pract       Date:  2011-05-12       Impact factor: 2.267

7.  A classification of errors in lay comprehension of medical documents.

Authors:  Alla Keselman; Catherine Arnott Smith
Journal:  J Biomed Inform       Date:  2012-08-20       Impact factor: 6.317

8.  Colorectal Cancer Screening and Chinese Americans: Efficacy of Lay Health Worker Outreach and Print Materials.

Authors:  Tung T Nguyen; Janice Y Tsoh; Kent Woo; Susan L Stewart; Gem M Le; Adam Burke; Ginny Gildengorin; Rena J Pasick; Jun Wang; Elaine Chan; Lei-Chun Fung; Jane Jih; Stephen J McPhee
Journal:  Am J Prev Med       Date:  2016-12-13       Impact factor: 5.043

9.  Accuracy of self-reported reason for colorectal cancer testing.

Authors:  Jan M Eberth; Sally W Vernon; Arica White; Peter N Abotchie; Sharon P Coan
Journal:  Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev       Date:  2010-01       Impact factor: 4.254

10.  Relationship of colorectal cancer awareness and knowledge with colorectal cancer screening.

Authors:  Heather M Brandt; Heather R Dolinger; Patricia A Sharpe; James W Hardin; Franklin G Berger
Journal:  Colorectal Cancer       Date:  2012
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.