Literature DB >> 18990740

Self-report versus medical records for assessing cancer-preventive services delivery.

Jeanne M Ferrante1, Pamela Ohman-Strickland, Karissa A Hahn, Shawna V Hudson, Eric K Shaw, Jesse C Crosson, Benjamin F Crabtree.   

Abstract

Accurate measurement of cancer-preventive behaviors is important for quality improvement, research studies, and public health surveillance. Findings differ, however, depending on whether patient self-report or medical records are used as the data source. We evaluated concordance between patient self-report and medical records on risk factors, cancer screening, and behavioral counseling among primary care patients. Data from patient surveys and medical records were compared from 742 patients in 25 New Jersey primary care practices participating at baseline in SCOPE (supporting colorectal cancer outcomes through participatory enhancements), an intervention trial to improve colorectal cancer screening in primary care offices. Sensitivity, specificity, and rates of agreement describe concordance between self-report and medical records for risk factors (personal or family history of cancer, smoking), cancer screening (breast, cervical, colorectal, prostate), and counseling (cancer screening recommendations, diet or weight loss, exercise, smoking cessation). Rates of agreement ranged from 41% (smoking cessation counseling) to 96% (personal history of cancer). Cancer screening agreement ranged from 61% (Pap and prostate-specific antigen) to 83% (colorectal endoscopy) with self-report rates greater than medical record rates. Counseling was also reported more frequently by self-report (83% by patient self-report versus 34% by medical record for smoking cessation counseling). Deciding which data source to use will depend on the outcome of interest, whether the data is used for clinical decision making, performance tracking, or population surveillance; the availability of resources; and whether a false positive or a false negative is of more concern.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2008        PMID: 18990740      PMCID: PMC2962564          DOI: 10.1158/1055-9965.EPI-08-0177

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


  49 in total

1.  Chart review. A need for reappraisal.

Authors:  L Wu; C M Ashton
Journal:  Eval Health Prof       Date:  1997-06       Impact factor: 2.651

2.  Validation of self-reported breast and cervical cancer screening tests among low-income minority women.

Authors:  E D Paskett; C M Tatum; D W Mack; H Hoen; L D Case; R Velez
Journal:  Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev       Date:  1996-09       Impact factor: 4.254

3.  Accuracy of self-report of mammography and Pap smear in a low-income urban population.

Authors:  P G McGovern; N Lurie; K L Margolis; J S Slater
Journal:  Am J Prev Med       Date:  1998-04       Impact factor: 5.043

4.  Compliance with mammography guidelines: physician recommendation and patient adherence.

Authors:  D S May; C I Kiefe; E Funkhouser; M N Fouad
Journal:  Prev Med       Date:  1999-04       Impact factor: 4.018

5.  Comparison of self-reported and database-linked family history of cancer data in a case-control study.

Authors:  R A Kerber; M L Slattery
Journal:  Am J Epidemiol       Date:  1997-08-01       Impact factor: 4.897

6.  The validity of male patients' self-reports regarding prostate cancer screening.

Authors:  T R Jordan; J H Price; K A King; T Masyk; A W Bedell
Journal:  Prev Med       Date:  1999-03       Impact factor: 4.018

7.  Validity of self-reported cancers in a prospective cohort study in comparison with data from state cancer registries.

Authors:  M M Bergmann; E E Calle; C A Mervis; H L Miracle-McMahill; M J Thun; C W Heath
Journal:  Am J Epidemiol       Date:  1998-03-15       Impact factor: 4.897

8.  Cancer screening by primary care physicians: a comparison of rates obtained from physician self-report, patient survey, and chart audit.

Authors:  D E Montaño; W R Phillips
Journal:  Am J Public Health       Date:  1995-06       Impact factor: 9.308

9.  Validity of self-reported mammography in low-income African-American women.

Authors:  V L Champion; U Menon; D H McQuillen; C Scott
Journal:  Am J Prev Med       Date:  1998-02       Impact factor: 5.043

10.  How valid are medical records and patient questionnaires for physician profiling and health services research? A comparison with direct observation of patients visits.

Authors:  K C Stange; S J Zyzanski; T F Smith; R Kelly; D M Langa; S A Flocke; C R Jaén
Journal:  Med Care       Date:  1998-06       Impact factor: 2.983

View more
  38 in total

1.  Importance of updating family cancer history in childhood cancer survivors.

Authors:  Selena Russo; Meera Warby; Katherine M Tucker; Claire E Wakefield; Richard J Cohn
Journal:  Fam Cancer       Date:  2017-10       Impact factor: 2.375

2.  A typology of electronic health record workarounds in small-to-medium size primary care practices.

Authors:  Asia Friedman; Jesse C Crosson; Jenna Howard; Elizabeth C Clark; Maria Pellerano; Ben-Tzion Karsh; Benjamin Crabtree; Carlos Roberto Jaén; Deborah J Cohen
Journal:  J Am Med Inform Assoc       Date:  2013-07-31       Impact factor: 4.497

3.  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

Review 4.  Health literacy and cancer screening: a systematic review.

Authors:  Benjamin R Oldach; Mira L Katz
Journal:  Patient Educ Couns       Date:  2013-10-14

5.  Intraclass correlation estimates for cancer screening outcomes: estimates and applications in the design of group-randomized cancer screening studies.

Authors:  Erinn M Hade; David M Murray; Michael L Pennell; Dale Rhoda; Electra D Paskett; Victoria L Champion; Benjamin F Crabtree; Allen Dietrich; Mark B Dignan; Melissa Farmer; Joshua J Fenton; Susan Flocke; Robert A Hiatt; Shawna V Hudson; Michael Mitchell; Patrick Monahan; Salma Shariff-Marco; Stacey L Slone; Kurt Stange; Susan L Stewart; Pamela A Ohman Strickland
Journal:  J Natl Cancer Inst Monogr       Date:  2010

Review 6.  Factors in quality care--the case of follow-up to abnormal cancer screening tests--problems in the steps and interfaces of care.

Authors:  Jane Zapka; Stephen H Taplin; Rebecca Anhang Price; Caroline Cranos; Robin Yabroff
Journal:  J Natl Cancer Inst Monogr       Date:  2010

7.  Colorectal cancer screening among primary care patients: does risk affect screening behavior?

Authors:  Christina B Felsen; Alicja Piasecki; Jeanne M Ferrante; Pamela A Ohman-Strickland; Benjamin F Crabtree
Journal:  J Community Health       Date:  2011-08

8.  Healthy behavioral choices and cancer screening in persons living with HIV/AIDS are different by sex and years since HIV diagnosis.

Authors:  Akemi T Wijayabahu; Zhi Zhou; Robert L Cook; Babette Brumback; Nicole Ennis; Lusine Yaghjyan
Journal:  Cancer Causes Control       Date:  2019-02-09       Impact factor: 2.506

9.  Breast, colorectal and prostate cancer screening for cancer survivors and non-cancer patients in community practices.

Authors:  Shawna V Hudson; Karissa A Hahn; Pamela Ohman-Strickland; Regina S Cunningham; Suzanne M Miller; Benjamin F Crabtree
Journal:  J Gen Intern Med       Date:  2009-11       Impact factor: 5.128

10.  Does patient time spent viewing computer-tailored colorectal cancer screening materials predict patient-reported discussion of screening with providers?

Authors:  Mechelle Sanders; Kevin Fiscella; Peter Veazie; James G Dolan; Anthony Jerant
Journal:  Health Educ Res       Date:  2016-06-24
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.