OBJECTIVES: We determined the validity of self-reported colorectal cancer (CRC) screening data provided by Appalachian Ohio residents and identified correlates of providing accurate data. DESIGN AND SAMPLE: We conducted cross-sectional telephone interviews between September 2009 and April 2010. Our study included Appalachian Ohio residents (n = 721) ages 51-75 years. MEASURES: We compared self-reported CRC screening data to medical records to determine validity. Multivariable logistic regression was used to identify correlates of providing accurate self-reported screening data. RESULTS: About 68% of participants self-reported having any CRC screening test within recommended guidelines, whereas medical records indicated that only 49% were within guidelines (concordance = 0.76). Concordance was higher for flexible sigmoidoscopy and fecal occult blood test compared with colonoscopy, although sensitivity and positive predictive value were much higher for colonoscopy. Participants overreported CRC screening behaviors for all tests. Participants who had a regular checkup in the last 2 years (OR = 2.78, 95% CI: 1.15-6.73), or who self-rated their health as good or better (OR = 1.88, 95% CI: 1.12-3.16) were more likely to provide accurate screening data. CONCLUSIONS: Many participants failed to provide accurate CRC screening data, and validity varied greatly across individual CRC screening tests. Future CRC screening studies among Appalachian residents should use medical records, if possible, to determine screening histories.
OBJECTIVES: We determined the validity of self-reported colorectal cancer (CRC) screening data provided by Appalachian Ohio residents and identified correlates of providing accurate data. DESIGN AND SAMPLE: We conducted cross-sectional telephone interviews between September 2009 and April 2010. Our study included Appalachian Ohio residents (n = 721) ages 51-75 years. MEASURES: We compared self-reported CRC screening data to medical records to determine validity. Multivariable logistic regression was used to identify correlates of providing accurate self-reported screening data. RESULTS: About 68% of participants self-reported having any CRC screening test within recommended guidelines, whereas medical records indicated that only 49% were within guidelines (concordance = 0.76). Concordance was higher for flexible sigmoidoscopy and fecal occult blood test compared with colonoscopy, although sensitivity and positive predictive value were much higher for colonoscopy. Participants overreported CRC screening behaviors for all tests. Participants who had a regular checkup in the last 2 years (OR = 2.78, 95% CI: 1.15-6.73), or who self-rated their health as good or better (OR = 1.88, 95% CI: 1.12-3.16) were more likely to provide accurate screening data. CONCLUSIONS: Many participants failed to provide accurate CRC screening data, and validity varied greatly across individual CRC screening tests. Future CRC screening studies among Appalachian residents should use medical records, if possible, to determine screening histories.
Authors: Diana M Tisnado; John L Adams; Honghu Liu; Cheryl L Damberg; Wen-Pin Chen; Fang Ashlee Hu; David M Carlisle; Carol M Mangione; Katherine L Kahn Journal: Med Care Date: 2006-02 Impact factor: 2.983
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: 2007-10 Impact factor: 4.254
Authors: Paul A Harris; Robert Taylor; Robert Thielke; Jonathon Payne; Nathaniel Gonzalez; Jose G Conde Journal: J Biomed Inform Date: 2008-09-30 Impact factor: 6.317
Authors: Resa M Jones; Steven J Mongin; DeAnn Lazovich; Timothy R Church; Mark W Yeazel Journal: Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev Date: 2008-04-01 Impact factor: 4.254
Authors: Stephen J Blumberg; Julian V Luke; Nadarajasundaram Ganesh; Michael E Davern; Michel H Boudreaux; Karen Soderberg Journal: Natl Health Stat Report Date: 2011-04-20
Authors: William J Curry; Eugene J Lengerich; Brenda C Kluhsman; Marie A Graybill; Jason Z Liao; Eric W Schaefer; Angela M Spleen; Mark B Dignan Journal: BMC Health Serv Res Date: 2011-05-23 Impact factor: 2.655
Authors: Phyllis A Wingo; Thomas C Tucker; Patricia M Jamison; Howard Martin; Colleen McLaughlin; Rana Bayakly; Susan Bolick-Aldrich; Pat Colsher; Robert Indian; Karen Knight; Stacey Neloms; Reda Wilson; Thomas B Richards Journal: Cancer Date: 2008-01-01 Impact factor: 6.860
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: Mira L Katz; Gregory S Young; Paul L Reiter; Michael L Pennell; Jesse J Plascak; Barret J Zimmermann; Janice L Krieger; Michael D Slater; Cathy M Tatum; Electra D Paskett Journal: Health Promot Pract Date: 2016-07-09
Authors: Mira L Katz; Paul L Reiter; Gregory S Young; Michael L Pennell; Cathy M Tatum; Electra D Paskett Journal: Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev Date: 2015-08-17 Impact factor: 4.254
Authors: Nancy E Schoenberg; Kathryn Eddens; Adam Jonas; Claire Snell-Rood; Christina R Studts; Benjamin Broder-Oldach; Mira L Katz Journal: Int J Qual Stud Health Well-being Date: 2016-02-22