Affiliations
AffiliationItem in Clipboard
Fecal occult blood testing beliefs and practices of U.S. primary care physicians: serious deviations from evidence-based recommendationsMarion R Nadel et al. J Gen Intern Med. 2010 Aug.
doi: 10.1007/s11606-010-1328-7. Epub 2010 Apr 10. AffiliationItem in Clipboard
AbstractBackground: Fecal occult blood testing (FOBT) is an important option for colorectal cancer screening that should be available in order to achieve high population screening coverage. However, results from a national survey of clinical practice in 1999-2000 indicated that many primary care physicians used inadequate methods to implement FOBT screening and follow-up.
Objective: To determine whether methods to screen for fecal occult blood have improved, including the use of newer more sensitive stool tests.
Design: Cross-sectional national survey of primary care physicians.
Participants: Participants consisted of 1,134 primary care physicians who reported ordering or performing FOBT in the 2006-2007 National Survey of Primary Care Physicians' Recommendations and Practices for Cancer Screening.
Main measures: Self-reported data on details of FOBT implementation and follow-up of positive results.
Results: Most physicians report using standard guaiac tests; higher sensitivity guaiac tests and immunochemical tests were reported by only 22.0% and 8.9%, respectively. In-office testing, that is, testing of a single specimen collected during a digital rectal examination in the office, is still widely used although inappropriate for screening: 24.9% of physicians report using only in-office tests and another 52.9% report using both in-office and home tests. Recommendations improved for follow-up after a positive test: fewer physicians recommend repeating the FOBT (17.8%) or using tests other than colonoscopy for the diagnostic work-up (6.6%). Only 44.3% of physicians who use home tests have reminder systems to ensure test completion and return.
Conclusions: Many physicians continue to use inappropriate methods to screen for fecal occult blood. Intensified efforts to inform physicians of recommended technique and promote the use of tracking systems are needed.
Conflict of interest statementNone disclosed.
FiguresFigure 1
Perceived effectiveness of guaiac-based FOBT*…
Figure 1
Perceived effectiveness of guaiac-based FOBT* and immunochemical FOBT*. *FOBT = fecal occult blood…
Figure 1Perceived effectiveness of guaiac-based FOBT* and immunochemical FOBT*. *FOBT = fecal occult blood test. Note: Vertical lines within bars indicate 95% confidence intervals around percentages.
Figure 2
Method of conducting FOBT* for…
Figure 2
Method of conducting FOBT* for screening, by physician specialty. *FOBT = fecal occult…
Figure 2Method of conducting FOBT* for screening, by physician specialty. *FOBT = fecal occult blood test; FP = family physician; GP = general practitioner; OB/GYN = obstetrician gynecologist; IM = internist. Note: Vertical lines within bars indicate 95% confidence intervals around percentages.
Similar articlesNadel MR, Shapiro JA, Klabunde CN, Seeff LC, Uhler R, Smith RA, Ransohoff DF. Nadel MR, et al. Ann Intern Med. 2005 Jan 18;142(2):86-94. doi: 10.7326/0003-4819-142-2-200501180-00007. Ann Intern Med. 2005. PMID: 15657156
Klabunde CN, Lanier D, Nadel MR, McLeod C, Yuan G, Vernon SW. Klabunde CN, et al. Am J Prev Med. 2009 Jul;37(1):8-16. doi: 10.1016/j.amepre.2009.03.008. Epub 2009 May 13. Am J Prev Med. 2009. PMID: 19442479 Free PMC article.
Singal AG, Corley DA, Kamineni A, Garcia M, Zheng Y, Doria-Rose PV, Quinn VP, Jensen CD, Chubak J, Tiro J, Doubeni CA, Ghai NR, Skinner CS, Wernli K, Halm EA. Singal AG, et al. Am J Gastroenterol. 2018 May;113(5):746-754. doi: 10.1038/s41395-018-0023-x. Epub 2018 Feb 27. Am J Gastroenterol. 2018. PMID: 29487413 Free PMC article.
Quintero E. Quintero E. Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2009 Oct;32(8):565-76. doi: 10.1016/j.gastrohep.2009.01.179. Epub 2009 Jul 3. Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2009. PMID: 19577340 Review. Spanish.
Meklin J, Syrjänen K, Eskelinen M. Meklin J, et al. Anticancer Res. 2020 Feb;40(2):575-581. doi: 10.21873/anticanres.13987. Anticancer Res. 2020. PMID: 32014898 Review.
Liu J, Finkelstein S, François F. Liu J, et al. Am J Gastroenterol. 2015 Sep;110(9):1355-8. doi: 10.1038/ajg.2015.234. Epub 2015 Aug 4. Am J Gastroenterol. 2015. PMID: 26238157
Nadeau M, Walaszek A, Perdue DG, Rhodes KL, Haverkamp D, Forster J. Nadeau M, et al. Prev Chronic Dis. 2016 Dec 15;13:E167. doi: 10.5888/pcd13.160267. Prev Chronic Dis. 2016. PMID: 27978410 Free PMC article.
Robertson DJ, Lee JK, Boland CR, Dominitz JA, Giardiello FM, Johnson DA, Kaltenbach T, Lieberman D, Levin TR, Rex DK. Robertson DJ, et al. Am J Gastroenterol. 2017 Jan;112(1):37-53. doi: 10.1038/ajg.2016.492. Epub 2016 Oct 18. Am J Gastroenterol. 2017. PMID: 27753435 Review.
Naylor K, Ward J, Polite BN. Naylor K, et al. J Gen Intern Med. 2012 Aug;27(8):1033-46. doi: 10.1007/s11606-012-2044-2. J Gen Intern Med. 2012. PMID: 22798214 Free PMC article. Review.
Hahn EE, Munoz-Plaza CE, Jensen CD, Ghai NR, Pak K, Amundsen BI, Contreras R, Cannizzaro N, Chubak J, Green BB, Skinner CS, Halm EA, Schottinger JE, Levin TR. Hahn EE, et al. J Gen Intern Med. 2024 Dec;39(16):3205-3216. doi: 10.1007/s11606-024-08764-0. Epub 2024 May 21. J Gen Intern Med. 2024. PMID: 38771535
RetroSearch is an open source project built by @garambo | Open a GitHub Issue
Search and Browse the WWW like it's 1997 | Search results from DuckDuckGo
HTML:
3.2
| Encoding:
UTF-8
| Version:
0.7.3