Literature DB >> 23666513

Barriers to screening colonoscopy in an urban population: a study to help focus further efforts to attain full compliance.

Vishal Ghevariya1, Sushil Duddempudi, Nehal Ghevariya, Madhavi Reddy, Sury Anand.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Awareness of colorectal cancer and decision for colorectal cancer screening is influenced by multiple factors including ethnicity, level of education, and adherence to regular medical follow up.
OBJECTIVE: Our survey aimed at assessing barriers to colorectal cancer screening among urban population.
DESIGN: This study is a survey of the general population.
SETTING: This study was made at a local community in the downtown area of a metropolitan city. PATIENTS/
SUBJECTS: The study population for this survey included 2000 non-institutionalized residents from local community of Brooklyn downtown area of City of Brooklyn, NY, USA. All participants were 50 years or older. INTERVENTION: No intervention was done. MAIN OUTCOME MEASUREMENT: The survey questionnaire collected information about demographic, socioeconomic level, awareness of various cancers and their screening methods, and awareness of screening colonoscopy.
RESULTS: Colonoscopy was identified as the best screening test by 31 % of the subjects. Pain and discomfort was the major reason for not having a colonoscopy. The fear of a complication declined significantly after the first colonoscopy but fear of pain and discomfort increased. Difficulty with bowel preparation before a colonoscopy was a significant problem; it discouraged significant number of participants from having another colonoscopy. LIMITATION: This study is limited by its small sample size.
CONCLUSION: Physician/family and peer influence seems important but influencing only a minority of subjects. Fear of complications should be allayed using accurate statistical information. Pain should be significantly diminished and/or eliminated during colonoscopy. Future research should focus to minimize complexity and discomfort associated with bowel preparation.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2013        PMID: 23666513     DOI: 10.1007/s00384-013-1708-7

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Int J Colorectal Dis        ISSN: 0179-1958            Impact factor:   2.571


  22 in total

1.  A population-based study of colorectal cancer test use: results from the 2001 California Health Interview Survey.

Authors:  David A Etzioni; Ninez A Ponce; Susan H Babey; Benjamin A Spencer; E Richard Brown; Clifford Y Ko; Neetu Chawla; Nancy Breen; Carrie N Klabunde
Journal:  Cancer       Date:  2004-12-01       Impact factor: 6.860

2.  Patient preferences for colon cancer screening.

Authors:  M Pignone; D Bucholtz; R Harris
Journal:  J Gen Intern Med       Date:  1999-07       Impact factor: 5.128

3.  Screening for colorectal cancer in a high-risk population. Results of a mathematical model.

Authors:  D M Eddy; F W Nugent; J F Eddy; J Coller; V Gilbertsen; L S Gottlieb; R Rice; P Sherlock; S Winawer
Journal:  Gastroenterology       Date:  1987-03       Impact factor: 22.682

4.  Effective colorectal cancer education for Asian Americans: a Michigan program.

Authors:  Tsu-Yin Wu; John Y Kao; Hsing-Fang Hsieh; Yu-Ying Tang; Judy Chen; Janilla Lee; Deborah Oakley
Journal:  J Cancer Educ       Date:  2010-06       Impact factor: 2.037

5.  Physician-patient communication about colorectal cancer screening.

Authors:  Michael S Wolf; David W Baker; Gregory Makoul
Journal:  J Gen Intern Med       Date:  2007-09-13       Impact factor: 5.128

6.  Cancer statistics, 2003.

Authors:  Ahmedin Jemal; Taylor Murray; Alicia Samuels; Asma Ghafoor; Elizabeth Ward; Michael J Thun
Journal:  CA Cancer J Clin       Date:  2003 Jan-Feb       Impact factor: 508.702

7.  Protection by endoscopy against death from colorectal cancer. A case-control study among veterans.

Authors:  A D Müller; A Sonnenberg
Journal:  Arch Intern Med       Date:  1995-09-11

8.  Community-based colorectal cancer intervention in underserved Korean Americans.

Authors:  Grace X Ma; Steve Shive; Yin Tan; Wanzhen Gao; Joanne Rhee; Micah Park; Jaesool Kim; Jamil I Toubbeh
Journal:  Cancer Epidemiol       Date:  2009-11-14       Impact factor: 2.984

9.  Racial differences in colorectal cancer screening practices and knowledge within a low-income population.

Authors:  Ann Scheck McAlearney; Katherine W Reeves; Stephanie L Dickinson; Kimberly M Kelly; Cathy Tatum; Mira L Katz; Electra D Paskett
Journal:  Cancer       Date:  2008-01-15       Impact factor: 6.860

10.  Prevention of colorectal cancer by colonoscopic polypectomy. The National Polyp Study Workgroup.

Authors:  S J Winawer; A G Zauber; M N Ho; M J O'Brien; L S Gottlieb; S S Sternberg; J D Waye; M Schapiro; J H Bond; J F Panish
Journal:  N Engl J Med       Date:  1993-12-30       Impact factor: 91.245

View more
  11 in total

1.  Decisional stage distribution for colorectal cancer screening among diverse, low-income study participants.

Authors:  C M Hester; W K Born; H W Yeh; K L Young; A S James; C M Daley; K A Greiner
Journal:  Health Educ Res       Date:  2015-02-25

Review 2.  Uncovering the barriers to undergoing screening among first degree relatives of colorectal cancer patients: a review of qualitative literature.

Authors:  Ker-Kan Tan; Violeta Lopez; Mee-Lian Wong; Gerald Choon-Huat Koh
Journal:  J Gastrointest Oncol       Date:  2018-06

3.  [Risk factors of pain during colonoscopic examination].

Authors:  Xue-Ying Lai; Xiao-Wei Tang; Si-Lin Huang; Wei Gong; Fa-Chao Zhi; Si-de Liu; Ye Chen
Journal:  Nan Fang Yi Ke Da Xue Xue Bao       Date:  2016-04-20

4.  Predicting Colonoscopy Screening Behavior and Future Screening Intentions for African Americans Older than 50 Years.

Authors:  Lynne B Klasko-Foster; Lina M Jandorf; Deborah O Erwin; Marc T Kiviniemi
Journal:  Behav Med       Date:  2018-11-14       Impact factor: 3.104

5.  Colonoscopy Insertion in Patients with Gastrectomy: Does Position Impact Cecal Intubation Time?

Authors:  Jae Hyun Kim; Youn Jung Choi; Hye Jung Kwon; Gyu Man Oh; Kyoungwon Jung; Sung Eun Kim; Won Moon; Moo In Park; Seun Ja Park
Journal:  Dig Dis Sci       Date:  2022-02-05       Impact factor: 3.487

6.  Determinants of variations in self-reported barriers to colonoscopy among uninsured patients in a primary care setting.

Authors:  Chinedum Ojinnaka; Ann Vuong; Janet Helduser; Philip Nash; Marcia G Ory; David A McClellan; Jane N Bolin
Journal:  J Community Health       Date:  2015-04

7.  Efficacy of a small-caliber colonoscope for pain in female patients during unsedated colonoscopy: a randomized controlled study.

Authors:  Yasuhiko Hamada; Kyosuke Tanaka; Masaki Katsurahara; Noriyuki Horiki; Reiko Yamada; Junya Tsuboi; Misaki Nakamura; Satoshi Tamaru; Tomomi Yamada; Yoshiyuki Takei
Journal:  Endosc Int Open       Date:  2021-06-17

8.  A hydraulically driven colonoscope.

Authors:  Stuart A Coleman; Silvia C Tapia-Siles; Markus Pakleppa; Jan B Vorstius; Robert P Keatch; Benjie Tang; Alfred Cuschieri
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  2016-07-22       Impact factor: 4.584

9.  Improved Bowel Preparation with Multimedia Education in a Predominantly African-American Population: A Randomized Study.

Authors:  Shashank Garg; Mohit Girotra; Lakshya Chandra; Vipin Verma; Sumanjit Kaur; Allawy Allawy; Alessandra Secco; Rohit Anand; Sudhir K Dutta
Journal:  Diagn Ther Endosc       Date:  2016-02-23

10.  A short telephone-call reminder improves bowel preparation, quality indicators and patient satisfaction with first colonoscopy.

Authors:  Marisol Gálvez; Angel Mario Zarate; Hector Espino; Fátima Higuera-de la Tijera; Richard Alexander Awad; Santiago Camacho
Journal:  Endosc Int Open       Date:  2017-11-21
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.