探索美国退伍军人的结直肠癌筛查覆盖率:分析不同筛查方法中基于健康的患者因素的临床、社会人口和社会决定因素:分析不同筛查方法中基于健康的患者因素的临床、社会人口和社会决定因素。

IF 2.8 4区 医学 Q2 GASTROENTEROLOGY & HEPATOLOGY Journal of clinical gastroenterology Pub Date : 2024-08-27 DOI:10.1097/MCG.0000000000002065
Kanika Malani, Kirsten Loscalzo, Yousef Elfanagely, Kittichai Promrat
{"title":"探索美国退伍军人的结直肠癌筛查覆盖率:分析不同筛查方法中基于健康的患者因素的临床、社会人口和社会决定因素:分析不同筛查方法中基于健康的患者因素的临床、社会人口和社会决定因素。","authors":"Kanika Malani, Kirsten Loscalzo, Yousef Elfanagely, Kittichai Promrat","doi":"10.1097/MCG.0000000000002065","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>Mailed fecal immunochemical testing (mFIT), in-clinic FIT (cFIT), and colonoscopy are believed to reach distinct patient populations. This study aims to evaluate this belief.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Sociodemographic, clinical, and social determinants of health (SDOH) characteristics of 201 patients completing mFIT, 203 patients completing cFIT, and 74 patients completing colonoscopy at a Northeastern United States Veterans Affairs center from August 2023 to January 2024 were compared using descriptive statistics, χ2, and ANOVA tests.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Patients completing mFIT (P=0.003) and cFIT (P=0.001) were older than those completing colonoscopy. mFIT patients had more private health insurance as compared with cFIT (P<0.0001) patients. Patients completing colonoscopy had higher average disability ratings as compared with cFIT patients (P<0.0001). mFIT (P<0.0001) and colonoscopy (P<0.0001) patients had more time elapsed since their last primary care visit as compared with cFIT patients. mFIT patients had lower rates of mental health disorders as compared with colonoscopy (P<0.0001) and cFIT (P<0.0001) patients. cFIT patients had higher rates of past stool test use as compared with mFIT (P<0.0001) and colonoscopy (P<0.0001) patients. mFIT patients had lower rates of past colonoscopy completion as compared with cFIT (P<0.0001) and colonoscopy (P<0.0001) patients. There were no significant differences in SDOH domains among patients completing each of the screening methods.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>While each of the screening methods reaches a different patient population, mFIT does not reach a substantially more vulnerable population compared with cFIT and colonoscopy, highlighting the need for improvements in mFIT outreach.</p>","PeriodicalId":15457,"journal":{"name":"Journal of clinical gastroenterology","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.8000,"publicationDate":"2024-08-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Exploring Colorectal Cancer Screening Reach Among United States Veterans: Analyzing Clinical, Sociodemographic, and Social Determinants of Health-Based Patient Factors Across Screening Methods: Analyzing Clinical, Sociodemographic, and Social Determinants of Health-based Patient Factors Across Screening Methods.\",\"authors\":\"Kanika Malani, Kirsten Loscalzo, Yousef Elfanagely, Kittichai Promrat\",\"doi\":\"10.1097/MCG.0000000000002065\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>Mailed fecal immunochemical testing (mFIT), in-clinic FIT (cFIT), and colonoscopy are believed to reach distinct patient populations. This study aims to evaluate this belief.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Sociodemographic, clinical, and social determinants of health (SDOH) characteristics of 201 patients completing mFIT, 203 patients completing cFIT, and 74 patients completing colonoscopy at a Northeastern United States Veterans Affairs center from August 2023 to January 2024 were compared using descriptive statistics, χ2, and ANOVA tests.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Patients completing mFIT (P=0.003) and cFIT (P=0.001) were older than those completing colonoscopy. mFIT patients had more private health insurance as compared with cFIT (P<0.0001) patients. Patients completing colonoscopy had higher average disability ratings as compared with cFIT patients (P<0.0001). mFIT (P<0.0001) and colonoscopy (P<0.0001) patients had more time elapsed since their last primary care visit as compared with cFIT patients. mFIT patients had lower rates of mental health disorders as compared with colonoscopy (P<0.0001) and cFIT (P<0.0001) patients. cFIT patients had higher rates of past stool test use as compared with mFIT (P<0.0001) and colonoscopy (P<0.0001) patients. mFIT patients had lower rates of past colonoscopy completion as compared with cFIT (P<0.0001) and colonoscopy (P<0.0001) patients. There were no significant differences in SDOH domains among patients completing each of the screening methods.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>While each of the screening methods reaches a different patient population, mFIT does not reach a substantially more vulnerable population compared with cFIT and colonoscopy, highlighting the need for improvements in mFIT outreach.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":15457,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of clinical gastroenterology\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.8000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-08-27\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of clinical gastroenterology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1097/MCG.0000000000002065\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"GASTROENTEROLOGY & HEPATOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of clinical gastroenterology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1097/MCG.0000000000002065","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"GASTROENTEROLOGY & HEPATOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

简介:邮寄粪便免疫化学检验(mFIT)、诊所内粪便免疫化学检验(cFIT)和结肠镜检查被认为能覆盖不同的患者人群。本研究旨在评估这一观点:方法:使用描述性统计、χ2 和方差分析检验比较了 2023 年 8 月至 2024 年 1 月期间在美国东北部退伍军人事务中心完成 mFIT 的 201 名患者、完成 cFIT 的 203 名患者和完成结肠镜检查的 74 名患者的社会人口学、临床和健康社会决定因素(SDOH)特征:完成 mFIT(P=0.003)和 cFIT(P=0.001)的患者比完成结肠镜检查的患者年龄大:虽然每种筛查方法所覆盖的患者人群不同,但与 cFIT 和结肠镜检查相比,mFIT 所覆盖的弱势人群要少得多,因此需要改进 mFIT 的推广工作。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
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
Exploring Colorectal Cancer Screening Reach Among United States Veterans: Analyzing Clinical, Sociodemographic, and Social Determinants of Health-Based Patient Factors Across Screening Methods: Analyzing Clinical, Sociodemographic, and Social Determinants of Health-based Patient Factors Across Screening Methods.

Introduction: Mailed fecal immunochemical testing (mFIT), in-clinic FIT (cFIT), and colonoscopy are believed to reach distinct patient populations. This study aims to evaluate this belief.

Methods: Sociodemographic, clinical, and social determinants of health (SDOH) characteristics of 201 patients completing mFIT, 203 patients completing cFIT, and 74 patients completing colonoscopy at a Northeastern United States Veterans Affairs center from August 2023 to January 2024 were compared using descriptive statistics, χ2, and ANOVA tests.

Results: Patients completing mFIT (P=0.003) and cFIT (P=0.001) were older than those completing colonoscopy. mFIT patients had more private health insurance as compared with cFIT (P<0.0001) patients. Patients completing colonoscopy had higher average disability ratings as compared with cFIT patients (P<0.0001). mFIT (P<0.0001) and colonoscopy (P<0.0001) patients had more time elapsed since their last primary care visit as compared with cFIT patients. mFIT patients had lower rates of mental health disorders as compared with colonoscopy (P<0.0001) and cFIT (P<0.0001) patients. cFIT patients had higher rates of past stool test use as compared with mFIT (P<0.0001) and colonoscopy (P<0.0001) patients. mFIT patients had lower rates of past colonoscopy completion as compared with cFIT (P<0.0001) and colonoscopy (P<0.0001) patients. There were no significant differences in SDOH domains among patients completing each of the screening methods.

Conclusion: While each of the screening methods reaches a different patient population, mFIT does not reach a substantially more vulnerable population compared with cFIT and colonoscopy, highlighting the need for improvements in mFIT outreach.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Journal of clinical gastroenterology
Journal of clinical gastroenterology 医学-胃肠肝病学
CiteScore
5.60
自引率
3.40%
发文量
339
审稿时长
3-8 weeks
期刊介绍: Journal of Clinical Gastroenterology gathers the world''s latest, most relevant clinical studies and reviews, case reports, and technical expertise in a single source. Regular features include cutting-edge, peer-reviewed articles and clinical reviews that put the latest research and development into the context of your practice. Also included are biographies, focused organ reviews, practice management, and therapeutic recommendations.
期刊最新文献
Clinical Impact of High-dose Esomeprazole-amoxicillin Dual Therapy as Rescue Treatment for Helicobacter pylori Infection: A Prospective, Multicenter, Randomized Trial. Efficacy and Safety of Direct Oral Anticoagulants Versus Warfarin in Patients With Atrial Fibrillation and Liver Cirrhosis. Prevalence and Pathophysiology of Loose Stools and Their Impact on Clinical Severity and Quality of Life in Women With Fecal Incontinence. Brain Fog in Gastrointestinal Disorders: Small Intestinal Bacterial Overgrowth, Gastroparesis, Irritable Bowel Syndrome. Strategies, Technologies, and Tips for Successful Cecal Intubation.
×
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