Correlates of self-reported colorectal cancer screening accuracy in a multi-specialty medical group practice.

Arica White, Sally W Vernon, Jan M Eberth, Jasmin A Tiro, Sharon P Coan, Peter N Abotchie, Anthony Greisinger
{"title":"Correlates of self-reported colorectal cancer screening accuracy in a multi-specialty medical group practice.","authors":"Arica White,&nbsp;Sally W Vernon,&nbsp;Jan M Eberth,&nbsp;Jasmin A Tiro,&nbsp;Sharon P Coan,&nbsp;Peter N Abotchie,&nbsp;Anthony Greisinger","doi":"10.4236/ojepi.2013.31004","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>We assessed whether accuracy of self-reported screening for colorectal cancer (CRC) varied by respondent characteristics or healthcare utilization.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>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).</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>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.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>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.</p>","PeriodicalId":19578,"journal":{"name":"Open Journal of Epidemiology","volume":"3 1","pages":"20-24"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2013-02-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3767154/pdf/nihms466488.pdf","citationCount":"10","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Open Journal of Epidemiology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.4236/ojepi.2013.31004","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 10

Abstract

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.

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
在多专业医疗团体实践中自我报告的结直肠癌筛查准确性的相关性
目的:我们评估自我报告的结直肠癌(CRC)筛查的准确性是否因受访者特征或医疗保健利用而变化。方法:从2005年至2007年,从一家多专科医疗集团招募了857名年龄在51 - 74岁之间的受访者,对他们的CRC筛查(CRCS)行为进行问卷调查。将自我报告与行政和医疗记录进行比较,以评估总体CRCS(粪便隐血检查、乙状结肠镜检查和/或结肠镜检查)的一致性、敏感性、特异性和报告记录比。结果:一致性较好(≥0.8 ~ 5次门诊外就诊),较差(5次门诊外就诊,或其医疗保健提供者建议进行特定的CRCS试验)。65岁以上、外出超过5次的受访者报告CRCS过高。结论:除了少数例外,参保人群的CRCS自我报告在各个亚组中都是相当准确的。需要更多的工作来在不同的环境和人群中复制这些发现,以更好地了解亚组差异并改进CRCS的测量方法。
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
Prevalence and Clinical Relevance of Schistosoma mansoni Co-Infection with Mycobacterium tuberculosis: A Systematic Literature Review. Temporal Variations in Mortality after Liver Transplantation: Retrospective Investigation of Potential Risk Factors Using Propensity Score Screening for Precancerous Cervical Lesions in Women of Reproductive Age in the Kara Region of Togo in 2022 Factors Associated with Full Vaccination of Children Aged 12 to 23 Months in the Commune of Thiomby (Kaolack/Senegal) Prevalence and Factors Associated with Psychoactive Substance Misuse among Heavy Goods Vehicle Drivers in Cotonou, Benin
×
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