INTRODUCTION: Population-based surveys are used to assess colorectal cancer (CRC) screening rates, but may be subject to self-report biases. Clinical data from electronic health records (EHR) are another data source for assessing screening rates and self-report bias; however, use of EHR data for population research is relatively new. We sought to compare CRC screening rates from a self-report survey, the 2007 California Health Interview Survey (CHIS), to EHR data from Palo Alto Medical Foundation (PAMF), a multi-specialty healthcare organization serving three counties in California. METHODS: Ever- and up-to-date CRC screening rates were compared between CHIS respondents (N=18,748) and PAMF patients (N=26,283). Both samples were limited to English proficient subjects aged 51-75 with health insurance and a physician visit in the past two years. PAMF rates were age-sex standardized to the CHIS population. Analyses were stratified by racial/ethnic group. RESULTS: EHR data included PAMF internally completed tests (84%), and patient-reported externally completed tests which were either confirmed (7%) or unconfirmed (9%) by a physician. When excluding unconfirmed tests, PAMF screening rates were 6-14 percentage points lower than CHIS rates, for both ever- and up-to-date CRC screening among Non-Hispanic White, Black, Hispanic/Latino, Chinese, Filipino and Japanese subjects. When including unconfirmed tests, differences in screening rates between the two data sets were minimal. CONCLUSION: Comparability of CRC screening rates from survey data and clinic-based EHR data depends on whether or not unconfirmed patient-reported tests in EHR are included. This indicates a need for validated methods of calculating CRC screening rates in EHR data.
INTRODUCTION: Population-based surveys are used to assess colorectal cancer (CRC) screening rates, but may be subject to self-report biases. Clinical data from electronic health records (EHR) are another data source for assessing screening rates and self-report bias; however, use of EHR data for population research is relatively new. We sought to compare CRC screening rates from a self-report survey, the 2007 California Health Interview Survey (CHIS), to EHR data from Palo Alto Medical Foundation (PAMF), a multi-specialty healthcare organization serving three counties in California. METHODS: Ever- and up-to-date CRC screening rates were compared between CHIS respondents (N=18,748) and PAMFpatients (N=26,283). Both samples were limited to English proficient subjects aged 51-75 with health insurance and a physician visit in the past two years. PAMF rates were age-sex standardized to the CHIS population. Analyses were stratified by racial/ethnic group. RESULTS: EHR data included PAMF internally completed tests (84%), and patient-reported externally completed tests which were either confirmed (7%) or unconfirmed (9%) by a physician. When excluding unconfirmed tests, PAMF screening rates were 6-14 percentage points lower than CHIS rates, for both ever- and up-to-date CRC screening among Non-Hispanic White, Black, Hispanic/Latino, Chinese, Filipino and Japanese subjects. When including unconfirmed tests, differences in screening rates between the two data sets were minimal. CONCLUSION: Comparability of CRC screening rates from survey data and clinic-based EHR data depends on whether or not unconfirmed patient-reported tests in EHR are included. This indicates a need for validated methods of calculating CRC screening rates in EHR data.
Authors: Anna P Schenck; Carrie N Klabunde; Joan L Warren; Sharon Peacock; William W Davis; Sarah T Hawley; Michael Pignone; David F Ransohoff Journal: Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev Date: 2008-04-01 Impact factor: 4.254
Authors: Roshan Bastani; Beth A Glenn; Annette E Maxwell; Patricia A Ganz; Cynthia M Mojica; L Cindy Chang Journal: Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev Date: 2008-04-01 Impact factor: 4.254
Authors: M Baier; N Calonge; G Cutter; M McClatchey; S Schoentgen; S Hines; A Marcus; D Ahnen Journal: Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev Date: 2000-02 Impact factor: 4.254
Authors: Jeanne M Ferrante; Pamela Ohman-Strickland; Karissa A Hahn; Shawna V Hudson; Eric K Shaw; Jesse C Crosson; Benjamin F Crabtree Journal: Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev Date: 2008-11 Impact factor: 4.254
Authors: H Irene Hall; Stephen K Van Den Eeden; Dennis D Tolsma; Kate Rardin; Trevor Thompson; Amber Hughes Sinclair; Diane J Madlon-Kay; Marion Nadel Journal: Prev Med Date: 2004-07 Impact factor: 4.018
Authors: Latha P Palaniappan; Eric C Wong; Jessica J Shin; Maria R Moreno; Regina Otero-Sabogal Journal: Health Serv Res Date: 2009-06-22 Impact factor: 3.402
Authors: Lori A Pollack; Donald K Blackman; Katherine M Wilson; Laura C Seeff; Marion R Nadel Journal: Prev Chronic Dis Date: 2006-03-15 Impact factor: 2.830
Authors: Ronald E Myers; Karen Ruth; Sharon L Manne; James Cocroft; Randa Sifri; Barry Ziring; Desiree Burgh; Eric Ross; David S Weinberg Journal: J Behav Med Date: 2015-03-18
Authors: Amanda F Petrik; Beverly B Green; William M Vollmer; Thuy Le; Barbara Bachman; Erin Keast; Jennifer Rivelli; Gloria D Coronado Journal: Fam Pract Date: 2016-07-28 Impact factor: 2.267
Authors: Timothy S Chang; Ronald E Gangnon; C David Page; William R Buckingham; Aman Tandias; Kelly J Cowan; Carrie D Tomasallo; Brian G Arndt; Lawrence P Hanrahan; Theresa W Guilbert Journal: J Biomed Inform Date: 2014-12-20 Impact factor: 6.317
Authors: Arnab Mukherjea; Salma Shariff-Marco; Juan Yang; Winston Tseng; Latha Palaniappan; Jun Li; Susan L Ivey; Ma Somsouk; Scarlett Lin Gomez Journal: J Asian Health Date: 2022-04
Authors: David R Lairson; Melissa Dicarlo; Ashish A Deshmuk; Heather B Fagan; Randa Sifri; Nora Katurakes; James Cocroft; Jocelyn Sendecki; Heidi Swan; Sally W Vernon; Ronald E Myers Journal: Cancer Date: 2014-01-16 Impact factor: 6.860