Home - News ( United States | United Kingdom | Italy | Germany ) - Football scores

Showing content from https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/18381474/ below:

Validation of self-reported colorectal cancer screening behavior from a mixed-mode survey of veterans

Affiliations

• ¹ Center for Chronic Disease Outcomes Research, Minneapolis Veterans Affairs Medical Center, Minneapolis, MN 55417, USA. melissa.partin@va.gov

• PMID: 18381474
• DOI: 10.1158/1055-9965.EPI-07-0759

Item in Clipboard

Melissa R Partin et al. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev. 2008 Apr.

• ¹ Center for Chronic Disease Outcomes Research, Minneapolis Veterans Affairs Medical Center, Minneapolis, MN 55417, USA. melissa.partin@va.gov

• PMID: 18381474
• DOI: 10.1158/1055-9965.EPI-07-0759

Item in Clipboard

Objective: The aim of the study was to validate self-reported colorectal cancer (CRC) screening using the National Cancer Institute Colorectal Cancer Screening questionnaire.

Materials and methods: 890 patients, ages 50 to 75 years, from the Minneapolis Veterans Affairs (VA) Medical Center were surveyed by mail. Phone administration was attempted with mail nonresponders. VA and non-VA records were combined for the reference standard. Sensitivity, specificity, concordance, and report-to-records ratio (R2R) were estimated for overall and test-specific CRC adherence among respondents providing complete medical records. Secondary analyses examined variation in estimates by patient characteristics, treatment of missing and uncertain responses, and whether a strict or liberal time interval was used for assessing concordance.

Results: Complete medical records were available for 345 of the 686 survey responders. For overall adherence, sensitivity was 0.98, specificity was 0.59, concordance was 0.88, and R2R was 1.14. Sensitivity was 0.82 for fecal occult blood test (FOBT), 0.75 for sigmoidoscopy, 0.97 for colonoscopy, and 0.63 for double-contrast barium enema (DCBE). Specificity was 0.89 for FOBT, 0.76 for sigmoidoscopy, 0.72 for colonoscopy, and 0.85 for DCBE. Concordance was >0.80 for all tests other than sigmoidoscopy (0.76). R2R was 1.31 for FOBT, 1.33 for sigmoidoscopy, 1.42 for colonoscopy, and 6.13 for DCBE. The R2R was lower for a combined sigmoidoscopy and colonoscopy measure. Overreporting was more pronounced for older, less-educated individuals with no family history of CRC. Sensitivity and R2R improved using a liberal interval and treating uncertain responses as nonadherent (versus missing), but differences were not statistically significant.

Conclusions: Self-reported CRC screening validity is generally acceptable and robust across definitional decisions, but varies by screening test and patient characteristics.

PubMed Disclaimer

• Reliability and validity of a questionnaire to measure colorectal cancer screening behaviors: does mode of survey administration matter?

  Vernon SW, Tiro JA, Vojvodic RW, Coan S, Diamond PM, Greisinger A, Fernandez ME. Vernon SW, et al. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev. 2008 Apr;17(4):758-67. doi: 10.1158/1055-9965.EPI-07-2855. Epub 2008 Apr 1. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev. 2008. PMID: 18381467 Clinical Trial.

• Validation of self-reported history of colorectal cancer screening.

  Khoja S, McGregor SE, Hilsden RJ. Khoja S, et al. Can Fam Physician. 2007 Jul;53(7):1192-7. Can Fam Physician. 2007. PMID: 17872816 Free PMC article.

• Validity of four self-reported colorectal cancer screening modalities in a general population: differences over time and by intervention assignment.

  Jones RM, Mongin SJ, Lazovich D, Church TR, Yeazel MW. Jones RM, et al. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev. 2008 Apr;17(4):777-84. doi: 10.1158/1055-9965.EPI-07-0441. Epub 2008 Apr 1. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev. 2008. PMID: 18381476

• Agreement between self-reported and registered colorectal cancer screening: a meta-analysis.

  Dodou D, de Winter JC. Dodou D, et al. Eur J Cancer Care (Engl). 2015 May;24(3):286-98. doi: 10.1111/ecc.12204. Epub 2014 Apr 23. Eur J Cancer Care (Engl). 2015. PMID: 24754544 Review.

• Screening for colorectal cancer.

  Saliangas K. Saliangas K. Tech Coloproctol. 2004 Nov;8 Suppl 1:s10-3. doi: 10.1007/s10151-004-0098-9. Tech Coloproctol. 2004. PMID: 15655587 Review.

• Racial and Ethnic Disparities in Colonoscopic Examination of Individuals With a Family History of Colorectal Cancer.

  Almario CV, May FP, Ponce NA, Spiegel BM. Almario CV, et al. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2015 Aug;13(8):1487-95. doi: 10.1016/j.cgh.2015.02.038. Epub 2015 Feb 28. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2015. PMID: 25737445 Free PMC article.

• Self-perceived Mental Health Status and Uptake of Fecal Occult Blood Test for Colorectal Cancer Screening in Canada: A Cross-Sectional Study.

  Hategekimana C, Karamouzian M. Hategekimana C, et al. Int J Health Policy Manag. 2016 Feb 12;5(6):365-71. doi: 10.15171/ijhpm.2016.14. Int J Health Policy Manag. 2016. PMID: 27285514 Free PMC article.

• Relationship of colorectal cancer awareness and knowledge with colorectal cancer screening.

  Brandt HM, Dolinger HR, Sharpe PA, Hardin JW, Berger FG. Brandt HM, et al. Colorectal Cancer. 2012;1(5):383-396. doi: 10.2217/crc.12.45. Colorectal Cancer. 2012. PMID: 26257828 Free PMC article.

• Surveillance instructions and knowledge among African American colorectal cancer survivors.

  Pisu M, Holt CL, Brown-Galvan A, Fairley T, Smith JL, White A, Hall IJ, Oster RA, Martin MY. Pisu M, et al. J Oncol Pract. 2014 Mar;10(2):e45-50. doi: 10.1200/JOP.2013.001203. Epub 2014 Jan 2. J Oncol Pract. 2014. PMID: 24385336 Free PMC article.

• Survey mode and asking about future intentions did not impact self-reported colorectal cancer screening accuracy.

  Beebe TJ, Ziegenfuss JY, Jenkins SM, Lackore KA, Johnson TP. Beebe TJ, et al. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2014 Feb 5;14:19. doi: 10.1186/1471-2288-14-19. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2014. PMID: 24499399 Free PMC article.

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