Wen Meng1, Xi-Wen Bi, Xiao-Yin Bai, Hua-Feng Pan, Shan-Rong Cai, Qi Zhao, Su-Zhan Zhang. 1. Cancer Institute (Key Laboratory of Cancer Prevention and Intervention, China National Ministry of Education, Key Laboratory of Molecular Biology in Medical Sciences, Zhejiang Province), The Second Affiliated Hospital, Zhejiang University School of Medicine, Hangzhou, Zhejiang Province, China.
Abstract
AIM: To increase attendance for colonoscopy among nonadherent high-risk individuals for colorectal cancer (CRC) screening in China. METHODS: During the first 12 mo without intervention, only 428 of the 2398 high-risk subjects attended a scheduled colonoscopy examination. The 1970 subjects who did not attend for CRC screening were enrolled in the present study. Prior barrier investigation was performed to ascertain the reasons for nonadherence. A barrier-focused intervention program was then established and implemented among eligible nonadherent subjects by telephone interviews and on-site consultations. The completion rates of colonoscopy during the first 12 mo without intervention and the second 12 mo with intervention were compared. Variations in the effect of the intervention on some high-risk factors and barrier characteristics were analyzed using logistic regression. RESULTS: 540 subjects who were not eligible were excluded from the study. The colonoscopy attendance rate was 23.04% (428/1858) during the first 12 mo without intervention, and 37.69% (539/1430) during the second 12 mo with intervention (P < 0.001). Logistic regression analysis showed that the intervention was more effective among subjects with only objective barriers (OR: 34.590, 95% CI: 23.204-51.563) or subjects with some specific high-risk characteristics: first-degree relatives diagnosed with CRC (OR: 1.778, 95% CI: 1.010-3.131), personal history of intestinal polyps (OR: 3.815, 95% CI: 1.994-7.300) and positive result for immunochemical fecal occult blood testing (OR: 2.718, 95% CI: 1.479-4.996). CONCLUSION: The barrier-focused telephone or on-site consultation intervention appears to be a feasible means to improve colonoscopy attendance among nonadherent high-risk subjects for CRC screening in China.
AIM: To increase attendance for colonoscopy among nonadherent high-risk individuals for colorectal cancer (CRC) screening in China. METHODS: During the first 12 mo without intervention, only 428 of the 2398 high-risk subjects attended a scheduled colonoscopy examination. The 1970 subjects who did not attend for CRC screening were enrolled in the present study. Prior barrier investigation was performed to ascertain the reasons for nonadherence. A barrier-focused intervention program was then established and implemented among eligible nonadherent subjects by telephone interviews and on-site consultations. The completion rates of colonoscopy during the first 12 mo without intervention and the second 12 mo with intervention were compared. Variations in the effect of the intervention on some high-risk factors and barrier characteristics were analyzed using logistic regression. RESULTS: 540 subjects who were not eligible were excluded from the study. The colonoscopy attendance rate was 23.04% (428/1858) during the first 12 mo without intervention, and 37.69% (539/1430) during the second 12 mo with intervention (P < 0.001). Logistic regression analysis showed that the intervention was more effective among subjects with only objective barriers (OR: 34.590, 95% CI: 23.204-51.563) or subjects with some specific high-risk characteristics: first-degree relatives diagnosed with CRC (OR: 1.778, 95% CI: 1.010-3.131), personal history of intestinal polyps (OR: 3.815, 95% CI: 1.994-7.300) and positive result for immunochemical fecal occult blood testing (OR: 2.718, 95% CI: 1.479-4.996). CONCLUSION: The barrier-focused telephone or on-site consultation intervention appears to be a feasible means to improve colonoscopy attendance among nonadherent high-risk subjects for CRC screening in China.
Authors: Thomas D Denberg; John M Coombes; Tim E Byers; Alfred C Marcus; Lawrence E Feinberg; John F Steiner; Dennis J Ahnen Journal: Ann Intern Med Date: 2006-12-19 Impact factor: 25.391
Authors: Allen J Dietrich; Jonathan N Tobin; Andrea Cassells; Christina M Robinson; Mary Ann Greene; Carol Hill Sox; Michael L Beach; Katherine N DuHamel; Richard G Younge Journal: Ann Intern Med Date: 2006-04-18 Impact factor: 25.391
Authors: Michael Pignone; Melissa Rich; Steven M Teutsch; Alfred O Berg; Kathleen N Lohr Journal: Ann Intern Med Date: 2002-07-16 Impact factor: 25.391
Authors: Susan M Rawl; Victoria L Champion; Linda L Scott; Honghong Zhou; Patrick Monahan; Yan Ding; Patrick Loehrer; Celette Sugg Skinner Journal: Patient Educ Couns Date: 2008-03-04
Authors: A F van Rijn; L G M van Rossum; M Deutekom; R J F Laheij; P Fockens; P M M Bossuyt; E Dekker; J B M J Jansen Journal: J Public Health (Oxf) Date: 2008-08-20 Impact factor: 2.341
Authors: Ronald E Myers; Terry Hyslop; Randa Sifri; Heather Bittner-Fagan; Nora C Katurakes; James Cocroft; Melissa Dicarlo; Thomas Wolf Journal: Med Care Date: 2008-09 Impact factor: 2.983
Authors: Alexander Bauer; Jürgen F Riemann; Thomas Seufferlein; Max Reinshagen; Stephan Hollerbach; Ulrike Haug; Susanne Unverzagt; Stephanie Boese; Madeleine Ritter-Herschbach; Patrick Jahn; Thomas Frese; Michael Harris; Margarete Landenberger Journal: Dtsch Arztebl Int Date: 2018-10-26 Impact factor: 5.594
Authors: Luiz Ronaldo Alberti; Diego Paim Carvalho Garcia; Debora Lucciola Coelho; David Correa Alves De Lima; Andy Petroianu Journal: World J Gastrointest Oncol Date: 2015-12-15
Authors: Pansy Ferron; Shihab S Asfour; Lisa R Metsch; Michael H Antoni; Allan E Rodriguez; Robert Duncan; Sheila M Findlay Journal: Clin Transl Sci Date: 2015-05-21 Impact factor: 4.689
Authors: Gary V Martinez; Suryakiran Navath; Kamini Sewda; Venkataramanarao Rao; Parastou Foroutan; Ramesh Alleti; Valerie E Moberg; Ali M Ahad; Domenico Coppola; Mark C Lloyd; Robert J Gillies; David L Morse; Eugene A Mash Journal: Bioorg Med Chem Lett Date: 2013-02-13 Impact factor: 2.823