BACKGROUND: The purpose of this study was to identify factors associated with colorectal cancer (CRC) screening test preference and examine the association between test preference and test completed. METHODS: Patients (n = 1224) were 50-70 years, at average CRC risk, and overdue for screening. Outcome variables were preference for fecal occult blood test (FOBT), colonoscopy (COL), sigmoidoscopy (SIG), or barium enema (BE), measured by telephone survey, and concordance between test preference and test completed assessed using medical records. RESULTS: Thirty-five percent preferred FOBT, 41.1% COL, 12.7% SIG, and 5.7% BE. Preference for SIG or COL was associated with having a physician recommendation, greater screening readiness, test-specific self-efficacy, greater CRC worry, and perceived pros of screening. Preference for FOBT was associated with self-efficacy for doing FOBT. Participants who preferred COL were more likely to complete COL compared with those who preferred another test. Of those screened, only 50% received their preferred test. Those not receiving their preferred test most often received COL (52%). CONCLUSIONS: Lack of concordance between patient preference and test completed suggests that patients' preferences are not well incorporated into screening discussions and test decisions, which could contribute to low screening uptake. Physicians should acknowledge patients' preferences when discussing test options and making recommendations, which may increase patients' receptivity to screening.
BACKGROUND: The purpose of this study was to identify factors associated with colorectal cancer (CRC) screening test preference and examine the association between test preference and test completed. METHODS:Patients (n = 1224) were 50-70 years, at average CRC risk, and overdue for screening. Outcome variables were preference for fecal occult blood test (FOBT), colonoscopy (COL), sigmoidoscopy (SIG), or barium enema (BE), measured by telephone survey, and concordance between test preference and test completed assessed using medical records. RESULTS: Thirty-five percent preferred FOBT, 41.1% COL, 12.7% SIG, and 5.7% BE. Preference for SIG or COL was associated with having a physician recommendation, greater screening readiness, test-specific self-efficacy, greater CRC worry, and perceived pros of screening. Preference for FOBT was associated with self-efficacy for doing FOBT. Participants who preferred COL were more likely to complete COL compared with those who preferred another test. Of those screened, only 50% received their preferred test. Those not receiving their preferred test most often received COL (52%). CONCLUSIONS: Lack of concordance between patient preference and test completed suggests that patients' preferences are not well incorporated into screening discussions and test decisions, which could contribute to low screening uptake. Physicians should acknowledge patients' preferences when discussing test options and making recommendations, which may increase patients' receptivity to screening.
Authors: Sally W Vernon; Helen Meissner; Carrie Klabunde; Barbara K Rimer; Dennis J Ahnen; Roshan Bastani; Margaret T Mandelson; Marion R Nadel; Sherri Sheinfeld-Gorin; Jane Zapka Journal: Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev Date: 2004-06 Impact factor: 4.254
Authors: Nancy K Janz; Indu Lakhani; Sandeep Vijan; Sarah T Hawley; Lynna K Chung; Steven J Katz Journal: Prev Med Date: 2006-12-28 Impact factor: 4.018
Authors: Paula M Lantz; Nancy K Janz; Angela Fagerlin; Kendra Schwartz; Lihua Liu; Indu Lakhani; Barbara Salem; Steven J Katz Journal: Health Serv Res Date: 2005-06 Impact factor: 3.402
Authors: Donald Steinwachs; Jennifer Dacey Allen; William Eric Barlow; R Paul Duncan; Leonard E Egede; Lawrence S Friedman; Nancy L Keating; Paula Kim; Judith R Lave; Thomas A LaVeist; Roberta B Ness; Robert J Optican; Beth A Virnig Journal: NIH Consens State Sci Statements Date: 2010-02-04
Authors: R A Smith; A C von Eschenbach; R Wender; B Levin; T Byers; D Rothenberger; D Brooks; W Creasman; C Cohen; C Runowicz; D Saslow; V Cokkinides; H Eyre Journal: CA Cancer J Clin Date: 2001 Jan-Feb Impact factor: 508.702
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
Authors: Sumedha V Chablani; Noah Cohen; Drusilla White; Steven H Itzkowitz; Katherine DuHamel; Lina Jandorf Journal: J Immigr Minor Health Date: 2017-10
Authors: Daniel S Reuland; Alison T Brenner; Richard Hoffman; Andrew McWilliams; Robert L Rhyne; Christina Getrich; Hazel Tapp; Mark A Weaver; Danelle Callan; Laura Cubillos; Brisa Urquieta de Hernandez; Michael P Pignone Journal: JAMA Intern Med Date: 2017-07-01 Impact factor: 21.873
Authors: Alison T Brenner; Richard Hoffman; Andrew McWilliams; Michael P Pignone; Robert L Rhyne; Hazel Tapp; Mark A Weaver; Danelle Callan; Brisa Urquieta de Hernandez; Khalil Harbi; Daniel S Reuland Journal: Am J Prev Med Date: 2016-05-27 Impact factor: 5.043
Authors: Nirupa R Ghai; Christopher D Jensen; Sophie A Merchant; Joanne E Schottinger; Jeffrey K Lee; Jessica Chubak; Aruna Kamineni; Ethan A Halm; Celette Sugg Skinner; Jennifer S Haas; Beverly B Green; Nancy T Cannizzaro; Jennifer L Schneider; Douglas A Corley Journal: Cancer Prev Res (Phila) Date: 2020-07-15
Authors: Jane Jih; Minh P Nguyen; Irene Ly; Janice Y Tsoh; Gem M Le; Kent Woo; Elaine Chan; Ginny Gildengorin; Susan L Stewart; Adam Burke; Rena Pasick; Stephen J McPhee; Tung T Nguyen Journal: J Immigr Minor Health Date: 2018-12