PURPOSE: Australia has one of the highest incidences of colorectal cancer (CRC) in the world. In 2006, the federal government introduced a screening program consisting of a one-off fecal occult blood test offered to people turning 50, 55, or 65 years. We conducted a population-based study to estimate CRC screening practices existing outside the current program. METHODS: A total of 1887 unaffected subjects categorized "at or slightly above average risk" of CRC were selected from the Australasian Colorectal Cancer Family Registry. We calculated the proportions of participants that reported appropriate, under- and over-screening according to national guidelines. We performed a logistic regression analysis to evaluate associations between over-screening and a set of socio-demographic factors. RESULTS: Of 532 participants at average risk of CRC, eligible for screening, 4 (0.75 %) reported appropriate screening, 479 (90 %) reported never having been screened, 18 (3 %) reported some but less than appropriate screening, and 31 (6 %) reported over-screening. Of 412 participants aged 50 years or over, slightly above average risk of CRC, 1 participant (0.25 %) reported appropriate screening, 316 (77 %) reported no screening, and 11 (3 %) reported some but less than appropriate screening. Among participants under age 50 years, 2 % of those at average risk and 10 % of those slightly above average risk reported over-screening. Middle-aged people, those with a family history of CRC and those with a university degree, were more likely to be over-screened. CONCLUSION: Overall, the level of CRC screening participation was low and the vast majority of screening tests undertaken were inappropriate in terms of timing, modality, or frequency.
PURPOSE: Australia has one of the highest incidences of colorectal cancer (CRC) in the world. In 2006, the federal government introduced a screening program consisting of a one-off fecal occult blood test offered to people turning 50, 55, or 65 years. We conducted a population-based study to estimate CRC screening practices existing outside the current program. METHODS: A total of 1887 unaffected subjects categorized "at or slightly above average risk" of CRC were selected from the Australasian Colorectal Cancer Family Registry. We calculated the proportions of participants that reported appropriate, under- and over-screening according to national guidelines. We performed a logistic regression analysis to evaluate associations between over-screening and a set of socio-demographic factors. RESULTS: Of 532 participants at average risk of CRC, eligible for screening, 4 (0.75 %) reported appropriate screening, 479 (90 %) reported never having been screened, 18 (3 %) reported some but less than appropriate screening, and 31 (6 %) reported over-screening. Of 412 participants aged 50 years or over, slightly above average risk of CRC, 1 participant (0.25 %) reported appropriate screening, 316 (77 %) reported no screening, and 11 (3 %) reported some but less than appropriate screening. Among participants under age 50 years, 2 % of those at average risk and 10 % of those slightly above average risk reported over-screening. Middle-aged people, those with a family history of CRC and those with a university degree, were more likely to be over-screened. CONCLUSION: Overall, the level of CRC screening participation was low and the vast majority of screening tests undertaken were inappropriate in terms of timing, modality, or frequency.
Authors: Idris Guessous; Chiranjeev Dash; Pauline Lapin; Mary Doroshenk; Robert A Smith; Carrie N Klabunde Journal: Prev Med Date: 2009-12-16 Impact factor: 4.018
Authors: Polly A Newcomb; John Baron; Michelle Cotterchio; Steve Gallinger; John Grove; Robert Haile; David Hall; John L Hopper; Jeremy Jass; Loïc Le Marchand; Paul Limburg; Noralane Lindor; John D Potter; Allyson S Templeton; Steve Thibodeau; Daniela Seminara Journal: Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev Date: 2007-11-02 Impact factor: 4.254
Authors: Jean A Shapiro; Laura C Seeff; Trevor D Thompson; Marion R Nadel; Carrie N Klabunde; Sally W Vernon Journal: Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev Date: 2008-07 Impact factor: 4.254
Authors: Paul Ritvo; Ronald Myers; M Elisabeth Del Giudice; Lawrence Pazsat; Michelle Cotterchio; Roberta Howlett; Verna Mai; Patrick Brown; Terrence Sullivan; Linda Rabeneck Journal: Can Fam Physician Date: 2009-02 Impact factor: 3.275
Authors: Lee Mobley; Tzy-Mey Kuo; Matthew Urato; John Boos; Nancy Lozano-Gracia; Luc Anselin Journal: Cancer Causes Control Date: 2009-11-28 Impact factor: 2.506
Authors: Shakira Milton; Jon D Emery; Jane Rinaldi; Joanne Kinder; Adrian Bickerstaffe; Sibel Saya; Mark A Jenkins; Jennifer McIntosh Journal: Implement Sci Date: 2022-05-12 Impact factor: 7.960
Authors: Jennifer G Walker; Adrian Bickerstaffe; Nadira Hewabandu; Sanjay Maddumarachchi; James G Dowty; Mark Jenkins; Marie Pirotta; Fiona M Walter; Jon D Emery Journal: BMC Med Inform Decis Mak Date: 2017-01-19 Impact factor: 2.796
Authors: Mary Dillon; Louisa Flander; Daniel D Buchanan; Finlay A Macrae; Jon D Emery; Ingrid M Winship; Alex Boussioutas; Graham G Giles; John L Hopper; Mark A Jenkins; Driss Ait Ouakrim Journal: PLoS Med Date: 2018-08-16 Impact factor: 11.069
Authors: Mariko Carey; Robert Sanson-Fisher; Finlay Macrae; Emilie Cameron; David Hill; Catherine D'Este; Jody Simmons; Christopher Doran Journal: Aust N Z J Public Health Date: 2016-09-13 Impact factor: 2.939
Authors: Jennifer G Walker; Finlay Macrae; Ingrid Winship; Jasmeen Oberoi; Sibel Saya; Shakira Milton; Adrian Bickerstaffe; James G Dowty; Richard De Abreu Lourenço; Malcolm Clark; Louise Galloway; George Fishman; Fiona M Walter; Louisa Flander; Patty Chondros; Driss Ait Ouakrim; Marie Pirotta; Lyndal Trevena; Mark A Jenkins; Jon D Emery Journal: Trials Date: 2018-07-25 Impact factor: 2.279