Colorectal Cancer Screening Barriers in Persons with Low Income

Margaret Holmes-Rovner PhD, Gilbert A. Williams PhD, Susan Hoppough MSN, RN, Lisa Quillan BS, Rishan Butler BS, MA, C. William Given PhD
{"title":"Colorectal Cancer Screening Barriers in Persons with Low Income","authors":"Margaret Holmes-Rovner PhD,&nbsp;Gilbert A. Williams PhD,&nbsp;Susan Hoppough MSN, RN,&nbsp;Lisa Quillan BS,&nbsp;Rishan Butler BS, MA,&nbsp;C. William Given PhD","doi":"10.1046/j.1523-5394.2002.105003.x","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><b><span>purpose:</span></b> The purpose of this study was to provide insight into the modest success of a physician and patient education and reminder program that improved screening rates from 37% to 49% among rural Medicaid-eligible patients in western Michigan.</p><p><b><span>description of study:</span></b> The following four focus groups were conducted: African American men, African American women, White men, and White women, matched with moderators by gender and ethnicity. The sample was selected by contacting prior eligible screening refusers, completing groups with a convenience sample who had accepted screening. Twenty-one patients participated who were ages &gt;50 years. The screening refusal rates were 19% for men and 9% for women. Open-ended questions guided the discussion of colorectal cancer (CRC) attitudes, beliefs, and practices.</p><p><b><span>results:</span></b> All participants believed in the efficacy of cancer screening. White women were better informed about screening purposes and procedures. The major barriers to screening were quality of care (ie, the perceived lack of offering screening and the follow-up of test results) and the potential for pain from screening or treatment of CRC, should it be discovered.</p><p><b><span>clinical implications:</span></b> Successful efforts to improve awareness of the importance and efficacy of screening must further address deeply held skepticism and fears about CRC screening in this population. A fruitful direction for this difficult problem appears to be improved communication (both negative and positive test results). Without feedback, patients with negative results may assume lack of provider follow-through.</p>","PeriodicalId":79323,"journal":{"name":"Cancer practice","volume":"10 5","pages":"240-247"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2002-09-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1046/j.1523-5394.2002.105003.x","citationCount":"82","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Cancer practice","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1046/j.1523-5394.2002.105003.x","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 82

Abstract

purpose: The purpose of this study was to provide insight into the modest success of a physician and patient education and reminder program that improved screening rates from 37% to 49% among rural Medicaid-eligible patients in western Michigan.

description of study: The following four focus groups were conducted: African American men, African American women, White men, and White women, matched with moderators by gender and ethnicity. The sample was selected by contacting prior eligible screening refusers, completing groups with a convenience sample who had accepted screening. Twenty-one patients participated who were ages >50 years. The screening refusal rates were 19% for men and 9% for women. Open-ended questions guided the discussion of colorectal cancer (CRC) attitudes, beliefs, and practices.

results: All participants believed in the efficacy of cancer screening. White women were better informed about screening purposes and procedures. The major barriers to screening were quality of care (ie, the perceived lack of offering screening and the follow-up of test results) and the potential for pain from screening or treatment of CRC, should it be discovered.

clinical implications: Successful efforts to improve awareness of the importance and efficacy of screening must further address deeply held skepticism and fears about CRC screening in this population. A fruitful direction for this difficult problem appears to be improved communication (both negative and positive test results). Without feedback, patients with negative results may assume lack of provider follow-through.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
低收入人群的结直肠癌筛查障碍
目的:本研究的目的是深入了解医生和患者教育和提醒计划的适度成功,该计划将密歇根州西部符合医疗补助条件的农村患者的筛查率从37%提高到49%。研究描述:进行了以下四个焦点群体:非洲裔美国男性、非洲裔美国女性、白人男性和白人女性,并根据性别和种族进行调节。通过联系先前符合条件的筛查拒绝者,完成接受筛查的方便样本组来选择样本。21例患者年龄50岁。男性的拒绝率为19%,女性为9%。开放式问题引导讨论结直肠癌(CRC)的态度,信念和做法。结果:所有参与者都相信癌症筛查的有效性。白人妇女更了解筛查的目的和程序。筛查的主要障碍是护理质量(即,认为缺乏提供筛查和检查结果的随访)以及筛查或治疗结直肠癌的潜在疼痛,如果发现的话。临床意义:要成功提高筛查重要性和有效性的认识,必须进一步解决这一人群对CRC筛查的怀疑和恐惧。解决这个难题的一个富有成效的方向似乎是改善沟通(阴性和阳性的测试结果)。如果没有反馈,阴性结果的患者可能会认为提供者缺乏跟进。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Suramin. Author Index The Collaborative Evaluation Fellows Project: Background and Overview of the Model The CEFP as a Model for Integrating Evaluation within Organizations Integrating Theory and Practice: Conceptual Frameworks of the CEFP
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1