Literature DB >> 18381470

The effects of survey mode and asking about future intentions on self-reports of colorectal cancer screening.

Timothy J Beebe1, Sarah M Jenkins, Kari J Anderson, Michael E Davern, Todd H Rockwood.   

Abstract

Colorectal cancer (CRC) screening rates are often ascertained via self-reports but can be subject to overreporting bias. Asking about intention to get screened before asking about past screening may minimize overreporting of cancer screening. In a statewide survey conducted from July through October of 2005, we embedded an experiment that tested the effect of question ordering (asking about future intention to get screened before or after asking about past screening; "future first" and "future second," respectively), crossed with survey mode (mail versus telephone), on CRC screening rates. Weighted analysis focused on 752 respondents who were ages 50 years or older. We found (a) that asking about future intentions to get screened before asking about past screening (future first) statistically significantly lowers reports of past CRC screening [70.9% future second versus 58.0% future first; odds ratio (OR), 1.83; 95% confidence interval (95% CI), 1.08-3.13]; (b) that there was no main effect of survey mode; and (c) that the effect of the ordering of the future intentions item varies by survey mode. In the mailed survey, the odds of reporting past CRC screening were almost thrice greater in the future second condition compared with the future first condition (72.4% versus 49.0%, respectively; OR, 2.74; 95% CI, 1.22-6.17). In the telephone condition, the odds of reporting were only 28% higher in the future second (69.5%) condition than in the future first condition (63.9%; OR, 1.28; 95% CI, 0.64-2.57). The results suggest that asking about future intentions to get screened before the actual behavior elicits lower, and arguably more truthful reports of CRC screening but mainly in mailed surveys.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2008        PMID: 18381470     DOI: 10.1158/1055-9965.EPI-07-2622

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev        ISSN: 1055-9965            Impact factor:   4.254


  7 in total

1.  Is the accuracy of self-reported colorectal cancer screening associated with social desirability?

Authors:  Sally W Vernon; Peter N Abotchie; Amy McQueen; Arica White; Jan M Eberth; Sharon P Coan
Journal:  Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev       Date:  2011-12-05       Impact factor: 4.254

2.  Correlates of self-reported colorectal cancer screening accuracy in a multi-specialty medical group practice.

Authors:  Arica White; Sally W Vernon; Jan M Eberth; Jasmin A Tiro; Sharon P Coan; Peter N Abotchie; Anthony Greisinger
Journal:  Open J Epidemiol       Date:  2013-02

3.  African American's self-report patterns using the National Cancer Institute Colorectal Cancer Screening questionnaire.

Authors:  Sula Hood; Vetta L Sanders Thompson; Salimah Cogbill; Lauren D Arnold; Michael Talley; Nicole M Caito
Journal:  J Cancer Educ       Date:  2010-09       Impact factor: 2.037

4.  Familial risk for chronic disease and intent to share family history with a health care provider among urban Appalachian women, southwestern Ohio, 2007.

Authors:  Margaret G Au; Sandra J Cornett; Todd G Nick; Jody Wallace; Yu Wang; Nancy S Warren; Melanie F Myers
Journal:  Prev Chronic Dis       Date:  2009-12-15       Impact factor: 2.830

5.  Survey mode and asking about future intentions did not impact self-reported colorectal cancer screening accuracy.

Authors:  Timothy J Beebe; Jeanette Y Ziegenfuss; Sarah M Jenkins; Kandace A Lackore; Timothy P Johnson
Journal:  BMC Med Res Methodol       Date:  2014-02-05       Impact factor: 4.615

Review 6.  Harmonizing and consolidating the measurement of patient-reported information at health care institutions: a position statement of the Mayo Clinic.

Authors:  David T Eton; Timothy J Beebe; Philip T Hagen; Michele Y Halyard; Victor M Montori; James M Naessens; Jeff A Sloan; Carrie A Thompson; Douglas L Wood
Journal:  Patient Relat Outcome Meas       Date:  2014-02-10

7.  Decision Aid to Technologically Enhance Shared decision making (DATES): study protocol for a randomized controlled trial.

Authors:  Masahito Jimbo; Karen Kelly-Blake; Ananda Sen; Sarah T Hawley; Mack T Ruffin
Journal:  Trials       Date:  2013-11-11       Impact factor: 2.279

  7 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.