Cassandra Fritz1, Keith Naylor2, Karen Kim3. 1. Pritzker School of Medicine, University of Chicago, 5841 S. Maryland Avenue, MC 4076, Chicago, IL, 60637, USA. 2. Section of Gastroenterology Hepatology and Nutrition, Department of Medicine, The University of Chicago, 5841 S. Maryland Avenue, MC 4076, Chicago, IL, 60637, USA. Keith.Naylor@uchospitals.edu. 3. Section of Gastroenterology Hepatology and Nutrition, Department of Medicine, The University of Chicago, 5841 S. Maryland Avenue, MC 4076, Chicago, IL, 60637, USA.
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Colorectal screening (CRS) rates in minority and uninsured populations have increased through patient navigation (PN) interventions. However, patient knowledge of colonoscopy results and follow-up recommendations has not been described in an African American (AA) population or following PN. Our objectives were to determine patient knowledge of colonoscopy results and follow-up recommendations within an AA patient population and to compare post-colonoscopy knowledge among patients who received either PN or usual care. METHODS: This is a prospective observational study of patients who completed a screening colonoscopy in 2014. A semi-structured telephone survey was completed by 96 participants (69 % AA, 78 % female, and mean age 63 years). The survey assessed patient recall of polyp results and follow-up recommendations. Responses were compared with the medical record. RESULTS: Of 96 patients surveyed (response rate, 68 %), 83 % accurately reported if polyps were detected and 66 % accurately reported their recommended follow-up. The identification of adenomatous polyps on colonoscopy was a predictor of accurate recall of colonoscopy results and follow-up recommendations. Uninsured patients who completed PN (18 of 96) were more likely to accurately report polyp results (100 vs. 80 %; P = 0.036), but the rates of accurate follow-up recall were not statistically significant (44 vs. 71 %; P = 0.053) when compared to usual care patients. CONCLUSIONS: In an AA population, post-colonoscopy polyp recall rates were similar to those described in white populations. Uninsured patients who completed PN were more likely than insured usual care patients to accurately report the presence of polyps on colonoscopy.
BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Colorectal screening (CRS) rates in minority and uninsured populations have increased through patient navigation (PN) interventions. However, patient knowledge of colonoscopy results and follow-up recommendations has not been described in an African American (AA) population or following PN. Our objectives were to determine patient knowledge of colonoscopy results and follow-up recommendations within an AA patient population and to compare post-colonoscopy knowledge among patients who received either PN or usual care. METHODS: This is a prospective observational study of patients who completed a screening colonoscopy in 2014. A semi-structured telephone survey was completed by 96 participants (69 % AA, 78 % female, and mean age 63 years). The survey assessed patient recall of polyp results and follow-up recommendations. Responses were compared with the medical record. RESULTS: Of 96 patients surveyed (response rate, 68 %), 83 % accurately reported if polyps were detected and 66 % accurately reported their recommended follow-up. The identification of adenomatous polyps on colonoscopy was a predictor of accurate recall of colonoscopy results and follow-up recommendations. Uninsured patients who completed PN (18 of 96) were more likely to accurately report polyp results (100 vs. 80 %; P = 0.036), but the rates of accurate follow-up recall were not statistically significant (44 vs. 71 %; P = 0.053) when compared to usual care patients. CONCLUSIONS: In an AA population, post-colonoscopy polyp recall rates were similar to those described in white populations. Uninsured patients who completed PN were more likely than insured usual care patients to accurately report the presence of polyps on colonoscopy.
Entities:
Keywords:
African American; Colon cancer; Colonoscopy; Disparities; Early detection; Mass screening
Authors: Jaime Benarroch-Gampel; Kristin M Sheffield; Yu-Li Lin; Yong-Fang Kuo; James S Goodwin; Taylor S Riall Journal: Health Serv Res Date: 2011-12-08 Impact factor: 3.402
Authors: Karen E Lasser; Jennifer Murillo; Sandra Lisboa; A Naomie Casimir; Lisa Valley-Shah; Karen M Emmons; Robert H Fletcher; John Z Ayanian Journal: Arch Intern Med Date: 2011-05-23
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
Authors: Marion R Nadel; Zahava Berkowitz; Carrie N Klabunde; Robert A Smith; Steven S Coughlin; Mary C White Journal: J Gen Intern Med Date: 2010-04-10 Impact factor: 5.128
Authors: Karen E Kim; Fornessa Randal; Matt Johnson; Michael Quinn; Chieko Maene; Sonja Hoover; Valerie Richmond-Reese; Florence K L Tangka; Djenaba A Joseph; Sujha Subramanian Journal: Cancer Date: 2018-10-25 Impact factor: 6.860
Authors: Karen Kim; Blasé Polite; Donald Hedeker; David Liebovitz; Fornessa Randal; Manasi Jayaprakash; Michael Quinn; Sang Mee Lee; Helen Lam Journal: Implement Sci Date: 2020-10-29 Impact factor: 7.327