Literature DB >> 18725820

Preferences for colorectal cancer screening among racially/ethnically diverse primary care patients.

Sarah T Hawley1, Robert J Volk, Partha Krishnamurthy, Maria Jibaja-Weiss, Sally W Vernon, Suzanne Kneuper.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Incorporating patients' preferences into colorectal cancer (CRC) screening recommendations has been identified as a potential mechanism for increasing adherence. This study used conjoint analysis to describe variation in CRC screening preferences among racially/ethnically diverse primary care patients.
METHODS: We recruited patients ages 50-80 of a large practice-based research network stratified by white, African American, or Hispanic race/ethnicity to complete a preference assessment instrument. Participants were asked to rate 8 hypothetical CRC screening test scenarios comprised of different combinations of 5 attributes and 6 scenarios designed to depict guideline-recommended CRC screening tests (eg, fecal occult blood test, flexible sigmoidoscopy, colonoscopy, and double contrast barium enema) including new technology (eg, virtual colonoscopy, fecal immunochemical test). Responses were used to calculate the overall importance of test attributes, the relative importance of attribute levels, and to identify factors associated with preferences.
RESULTS: Two hundred twelve primary care patients were recruited to the study (74 white, 60 African American, 78 Hispanic). Of the guideline-recommended tests, 37% preferred COL, 31% FOBT, 15% BE, and 9% SIG. Ratings of new technology tests were significantly (P < 0.05) higher than ratings of guideline-recommended tests. The order of the importance of attributes was: what the test involved (37%), accuracy (19%), frequency (17%), discomfort (15%), and preparation (13%). Part-worth utilities for 1 attribute showed that collecting a stool sample was most preferable and endoscopy without sedation least preferable. Multivariate regression found that race/ethnicity and specific test attributes were independently associated (P < 0.05) with test preferences.
CONCLUSIONS: Primary care patients have distinct preferences for CRC screening tests that can be linked to test attributes. Racial/ethnic variations in test preferences persist when controlling for attributes. Tailoring screening recommendations to patients' preferences may increase screening adherence.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2008        PMID: 18725820     DOI: 10.1097/MLR.0b013e31817d932e

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


  88 in total

1.  Psychosocial risk profiles among black male Veterans Administration patients non-adherent with colorectal cancer screening.

Authors:  Rhonda BeLue; Usha Menon; Anita Y Kinney; Laura A Szalacha
Journal:  Psychooncology       Date:  2010-10-07       Impact factor: 3.894

2.  A computerized intervention to promote colorectal cancer screening for underserved populations: theoretical background and algorithm development.

Authors:  K Allen Greiner; Mugur V Geana; Aaron Epp; Angela Watson; Melissa Filippi; Christine Makosky Daley; Kimberly K Engelman; Aimee S James; Marci Campbell
Journal:  Technol Health Care       Date:  2012       Impact factor: 1.285

3.  Preferences for colorectal cancer screening tests and screening test use in a large multispecialty primary care practice.

Authors:  Sarah T Hawley; Amy McQueen; L Kay Bartholomew; Anthony J Greisinger; Sharon P Coan; Ronald Myers; Sally W Vernon
Journal:  Cancer       Date:  2011-09-21       Impact factor: 6.860

4.  Massachusetts health reform and disparities in coverage, access and health status.

Authors:  Jane Zhu; Phyllis Brawarsky; Stuart Lipsitz; Haiden Huskamp; Jennifer S Haas
Journal:  J Gen Intern Med       Date:  2010-08-21       Impact factor: 5.128

Review 5.  A descriptive review on methods to prioritize outcomes in a health care context.

Authors:  Inger M Janssen; Ansgar Gerhardus; Milly A Schröer-Günther; Fülöp Scheibler
Journal:  Health Expect       Date:  2014-08-25       Impact factor: 3.377

6.  Measuring Preferences for Colorectal Cancer Screening: What are the Implications for Moving Forward?

Authors:  Deborah Marshall; S Elizabeth McGregor; Gillian Currie
Journal:  Patient       Date:  2010-06-01       Impact factor: 3.883

7.  Uptake and positive predictive value of fecal occult blood tests: A randomized controlled trial.

Authors:  Jessica Chubak; Andy Bogart; Sharon Fuller; Sharon S Laing; Beverly B Green
Journal:  Prev Med       Date:  2013-09-09       Impact factor: 4.018

8.  Screening initiation with FIT or colonoscopy: Post-hoc analysis of a pragmatic, randomized trial.

Authors:  Caitlin C Murphy; Chul Ahn; Sandi L Pruitt; Amy E Hughes; Ethan A Halm; Samir Gupta; Noel O Santini; Katharine McCallister; Joanne M Sanders; Amit G Singal; Celette Sugg Skinner
Journal:  Prev Med       Date:  2018-12-01       Impact factor: 4.018

9.  The effects of test preference, test access, and navigation on colorectal cancer screening.

Authors:  Constantine Daskalakis; Sally W Vernon; Randa Sifri; Melissa DiCarlo; James Cocroft; Jocelyn Andrel Sendecki; Ronald E Myers
Journal:  Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev       Date:  2014-05-09       Impact factor: 4.254

Review 10.  Decision making about cancer screening: an assessment of the state of the science and a suggested research agenda from the ASPO Behavioral Oncology and Cancer Communication Special Interest Group.

Authors:  Marc T Kiviniemi; Jennifer L Hay; Aimee S James; Isaac M Lipkus; Helen I Meissner; Michael Stefanek; Jamie L Studts; John F P Bridges; David R Close; Deborah O Erwin; Resa M Jones; Karen Kaiser; Kathryn M Kash; Kimberly M Kelly; Simon J Craddock Lee; Jason Q Purnell; Laura A Siminoff; Susan T Vadaparampil; Catharine Wang
Journal:  Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev       Date:  2009-11       Impact factor: 4.254

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.