PURPOSE: Although screening with fecal occult blood testing (FOBT) reduces colorectal cancer (CRC) mortality, its effectiveness may diminish if patients do not adhere with repeated screenings. Among patients who had previously engaged in FOBT screening, we assessed subsequent adherence with FOBT screening. METHODS: We assessed longitudinal adherence with biennial FOBT screening (every other year) within a cohort of patients enrolled in an integrated Washington State health plan. Among 11,110 patients who participated in FOBT screening during a 2-year baseline period (2000-2001), we ascertained CRC screening use during a subsequent 2-year observation period (2002-2003). We used multinomial logistic regression to identify patient characteristics associated with higher incidence of repeat CRC screening (with or without FOBT) relative to patients who received no CRC screening. RESULTS: Despite prior participation in FOBT screening, less than one-half of patients (44.4%; 95% CI, 42.9%-45.8%) completed FOBT screening during the 2-year observation period. Although 8.8% of patients (95% CI, 8.0%-9.7%) received other CRC tests without FOBT during the observation period, nearly one-half, 46.8% (95% CI, 45.3%-48.4%), received no CRC screening. After adjustment for other patient characteristics, receipt of a preventive health examination was strongly associated with FOBT adherence relative to no CRC screening (adjusted relative rate ratio = 11.16; 95% CI, 9.61-12.96). CONCLUSIONS: Longitudinal adherence with FOBT screening was low in this insured population, potentially compromising its effectiveness in population CRC mortality reduction. Interventions to promote adherence may be necessary to achieve high effectiveness in population-based FOBT screening programs.
PURPOSE: Although screening with fecal occult blood testing (FOBT) reduces colorectal cancer (CRC) mortality, its effectiveness may diminish if patients do not adhere with repeated screenings. Among patients who had previously engaged in FOBT screening, we assessed subsequent adherence with FOBT screening. METHODS: We assessed longitudinal adherence with biennial FOBT screening (every other year) within a cohort of patients enrolled in an integrated Washington State health plan. Among 11,110 patients who participated in FOBT screening during a 2-year baseline period (2000-2001), we ascertained CRC screening use during a subsequent 2-year observation period (2002-2003). We used multinomial logistic regression to identify patient characteristics associated with higher incidence of repeat CRC screening (with or without FOBT) relative to patients who received no CRC screening. RESULTS: Despite prior participation in FOBT screening, less than one-half of patients (44.4%; 95% CI, 42.9%-45.8%) completed FOBT screening during the 2-year observation period. Although 8.8% of patients (95% CI, 8.0%-9.7%) received other CRC tests without FOBT during the observation period, nearly one-half, 46.8% (95% CI, 45.3%-48.4%), received no CRC screening. After adjustment for other patient characteristics, receipt of a preventive health examination was strongly associated with FOBT adherence relative to no CRC screening (adjusted relative rate ratio = 11.16; 95% CI, 9.61-12.96). CONCLUSIONS: Longitudinal adherence with FOBT screening was low in this insured population, potentially compromising its effectiveness in population CRC mortality reduction. Interventions to promote adherence may be necessary to achieve high effectiveness in population-based FOBT screening programs.
Authors: Timothy R Church; Mark W Yeazel; Resa M Jones; Laura K Kochevar; Gavin D Watt; Steven J Mongin; Jill E Cordes; Deborah Engelhard Journal: J Natl Cancer Inst Date: 2004-05-19 Impact factor: 13.506
Authors: Stephen H Taplin; Laura Ichikawa; Diana S M Buist; Deborah Seger; Emily White Journal: Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev Date: 2004-02 Impact factor: 4.254
Authors: Laura C Seeff; Marion R Nadel; Carrie N Klabunde; Trevor Thompson; Jean A Shapiro; Sally W Vernon; Ralph J Coates Journal: Cancer Date: 2004-05-15 Impact factor: 6.860
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: Ann G Zauber; Iris Lansdorp-Vogelaar; Amy B Knudsen; Janneke Wilschut; Marjolein van Ballegooijen; Karen M Kuntz Journal: Ann Intern Med Date: 2008-10-06 Impact factor: 25.391
Authors: Diana L Miglioretti; Carolyn M Rutter; Susan Carol Bradford; Ann G Zauber; Larry G Kessler; Eric J Feuer; David C Grossman Journal: Med Care Date: 2008-09 Impact factor: 2.983
Authors: Jeffrey K Lee; Elizabeth G Liles; Stephen Bent; Theodore R Levin; Douglas A Corley Journal: Ann Intern Med Date: 2014-02-04 Impact factor: 25.391
Authors: Beverly B Green; Melissa L Anderson; Jessica Chubak; Sharon Fuller; Richard T Meenan; Sally W Vernon Journal: Cancer Date: 2015-10-21 Impact factor: 6.860
Authors: Caitlin C Murphy; Robert S Sandler; Hanna K Sanoff; Y Claire Yang; Jennifer L Lund; John A Baron Journal: Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol Date: 2016-09-05 Impact factor: 11.382
Authors: Caitlin C Murphy; Ahana Sen; Bianca Watson; Samir Gupta; Helen Mayo; Amit G Singal Journal: Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev Date: 2019-11-18 Impact factor: 4.254
Authors: Caitlin C Murphy; Sally W Vernon; Nicole M Haddock; Melissa L Anderson; Jessica Chubak; Beverly B Green Journal: Prev Med Date: 2014-06-15 Impact factor: 4.018
Authors: Terry C Davis; Connie L Arnold; Charles L Bennett; Michael S Wolf; Cristalyn Reynolds; Dachao Liu; Alfred Rademaker Journal: Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev Date: 2013-11-05 Impact factor: 4.254