PURPOSE: We assessed whether accuracy of self-reported screening for colorectal cancer (CRC) varied by respondent characteristics or healthcare utilization. METHODS: From 2005 to 2007, 857 respondents aged 51 - 74 were recruited from a multi-specialty medical group practice to answer a questionnaire about their CRC screening (CRCS) behaviors. Self-reports were compared with administrative and medical records to assess concordance, sensitivity, specificity, and report-to-records ratios for overall CRCS (fecal occult blood test, sigmoidoscopy, and/or colonoscopy). RESULTS: Concordance was good (≥0.8 to <0.9) or fair (≥0.7 to <0.8) for most subgroups; respondents with >5 visits outside the clinic had poor (<0.7) concordance. Sensitivity estimates were mostly excellent (≥0.9) or good but poor for respondents whose healthcare provider did not advise a specific CRCS test. Specificity was poor for the following respondents: 65+ years, males, college graduates, family history of CRC, >5 visits outside of the clinic, or whose healthcare provider advised a specific CRCS test. Respondents 65+ years and with >5 outside visits over-reported CRCS. CONCLUSIONS: With few exceptions, self-reports of CRCS in an insured population is reasonably accurate across subgroups. More work is needed to replicate these findings in diverse settings and populations to better understand subgroup differences and improve measures of CRCS.
PURPOSE: We assessed whether accuracy of self-reported screening for colorectal cancer (CRC) varied by respondent characteristics or healthcare utilization. METHODS: From 2005 to 2007, 857 respondents aged 51 - 74 were recruited from a multi-specialty medical group practice to answer a questionnaire about their CRC screening (CRCS) behaviors. Self-reports were compared with administrative and medical records to assess concordance, sensitivity, specificity, and report-to-records ratios for overall CRCS (fecal occult blood test, sigmoidoscopy, and/or colonoscopy). RESULTS: Concordance was good (≥0.8 to <0.9) or fair (≥0.7 to <0.8) for most subgroups; respondents with >5 visits outside the clinic had poor (<0.7) concordance. Sensitivity estimates were mostly excellent (≥0.9) or good but poor for respondents whose healthcare provider did not advise a specific CRCS test. Specificity was poor for the following respondents: 65+ years, males, college graduates, family history of CRC, >5 visits outside of the clinic, or whose healthcare provider advised a specific CRCS test. Respondents 65+ years and with >5 outside visits over-reported CRCS. CONCLUSIONS: With few exceptions, self-reports of CRCS in an insured population is reasonably accurate across subgroups. More work is needed to replicate these findings in diverse settings and populations to better understand subgroup differences and improve measures of CRCS.
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: 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: Carrie N Klabunde; Kathleen A Cronin; Nancy Breen; William R Waldron; Anita H Ambs; Marion R Nadel Journal: Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev Date: 2011-06-08 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: Sally W Vernon; Jasmin A Tiro; Rachel W Vojvodic; Sharon Coan; Pamela M Diamond; Anthony Greisinger; Maria E Fernandez Journal: Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev Date: 2008-04-01 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: D Major; D Armstrong; H Bryant; W Cheung; K Decker; G Doyle; V Mai; C M McLachlin; J Niu; J Payne; N Shukla Journal: Curr Oncol Date: 2015-08 Impact factor: 3.677
Authors: Anna M Nápoles; Jasmine Santoyo-Olsson; Anita L Stewart; Jill Olmstead; Steven E Gregorich; Georgianna Farren; Ruben Cabral; Andrew Freudman; Eliseo J Pérez-Stable Journal: J Gen Intern Med Date: 2015-04 Impact factor: 5.128
Authors: Graham A Colditz; Lucy D'Agostino McGowan; Aimee S James; Kari Bohlke; Melody S Goodman Journal: Cancer Causes Control Date: 2013-10-22 Impact factor: 2.506
Authors: Jean A Shapiro; Ashwini V Soman; Zahava Berkowitz; Stacey A Fedewa; Susan A Sabatino; Janet S de Moor; Tainya C Clarke; V Paul Doria-Rose; Erica S Breslau; Ahmedin Jemal; Marion R Nadel Journal: Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev Date: 2021-06-04 Impact factor: 4.090