Literature DB >> 18321831

Self-reported cancer screening rates versus medical record documentation: incongruence, specificity, and sensitivity for African American women.

Barbara D Powe1, Dexter L Cooper.   

Abstract

PURPOSE/
OBJECTIVES: To evaluate levels of incongruence, specificity, and sensitivity between self-reported screening and medical record documentation for breast, cervical, and colorectal cancer screening.
DESIGN: Descriptive, quantitative.
SETTING: Federally qualified health centers in the southeastern United States. SAMPLE: 116 African American women. The mean age was 35 years, and the mean educational level was 12.6 years.
METHODS: Women were eligible to participate in the study if they were older than age 18 and able to understand English or Spanish. They were recruited from the waiting areas of health centers over a consecutive five-day period. MAIN RESEARCH VARIABLES: Self-reported rates of screening and screening rates documented in the medical record.
FINDINGS: The level of incongruence between self-report and medical record documentation was more than 50% for some procedures. Rates of specificity were high, particularly over time. Rates of sensitivity were 33% or less.
CONCLUSIONS: The women tended to overreport screenings in the past year when compared to medical records. The women and medical records indicated that the screenings had not been performed in the past two to five years or more than five years ago. IMPLICATIONS FOR NURSING: Nurses are in a unique position to educate women about cancer screening in a culturally and educationally appropriate way while ensuring that those conversations and procedures are documented in the medical record by all providers.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2008        PMID: 18321831     DOI: 10.1188/08.ONF.199-204

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Oncol Nurs Forum        ISSN: 0190-535X            Impact factor:   2.172


  5 in total

1.  A comparison of breast and cervical cancer legislation and screening in Georgia, North Carolina, and South Carolina.

Authors:  Stephanie Miles-Richardson; Daniel Blumenthal; Ernest Alema-Mensah
Journal:  J Health Care Poor Underserved       Date:  2012-05

2.  Validating self-reported mammography use in vulnerable communities: findings and recommendations.

Authors:  Kristi L Allgood; Garth H Rauscher; Steven Whitman; Giselle Vasquez-Jones; Ami M Shah
Journal:  Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev       Date:  2014-05-23       Impact factor: 4.254

3.  Inconsistencies between medical records and patient-reported recommendations for follow-up after abnormal Pap tests.

Authors:  Stacey Slone; Carol White; Brent Shelton; Emily Van Meter; Christopher DeSimone; Nancy Schoenberg; Mark Dignan
Journal:  J Womens Health (Larchmt)       Date:  2012-11-12       Impact factor: 2.681

4.  Number of Primary Care Visits Associated with Screening for Cervical Dysplasia among Women with HIV Infection in Harris County, Texas, United States of America.

Authors:  Natalie Jm Dailey Garnes; Gypsyamber D'Souza; Elizabeth Chiao
Journal:  HIV Adv Res Dev       Date:  2015-02-16

5.  Cancer surveillance and preventive services in a diverse sample of breast and colorectal cancer survivors.

Authors:  Beth A Glenn; Narissa J Nonzee; Ann S Hamilton; Lina Tieu; Annette E Maxwell; Catherine M Crespi; L Cindy Chang; Dennis Deapen; Roshan Bastani
Journal:  J Cancer Surviv       Date:  2020-08-14       Impact factor: 4.442

  5 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.