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

Showing content from https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/18725820/ below:

Preferences for colorectal cancer screening among racially/ethnically diverse primary care patients

Comparative Study

Affiliations

• ¹ Department of Internal Medicine, Division of General Medicine and Ann Arbor VA Healthcare System, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan 48109, USA. sarahawl@umich.edu

• PMID: 18725820
• DOI: 10.1097/MLR.0b013e31817d932e

Item in Clipboard

Comparative Study

Sarah T Hawley et al. Med Care. 2008 Sep.

• ¹ Department of Internal Medicine, Division of General Medicine and Ann Arbor VA Healthcare System, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan 48109, USA. sarahawl@umich.edu

• PMID: 18725820
• DOI: 10.1097/MLR.0b013e31817d932e

Item in Clipboard

Background: Incorporating patients' preferences into colorectal cancer (CRC) screening recommendations has been identified as a potential mechanism for increasing adherence. This study used conjoint analysis to describe variation in CRC screening preferences among racially/ethnically diverse primary care patients.

Methods: We recruited patients ages 50-80 of a large practice-based research network stratified by white, African American, or Hispanic race/ethnicity to complete a preference assessment instrument. Participants were asked to rate 8 hypothetical CRC screening test scenarios comprised of different combinations of 5 attributes and 6 scenarios designed to depict guideline-recommended CRC screening tests (eg, fecal occult blood test, flexible sigmoidoscopy, colonoscopy, and double contrast barium enema) including new technology (eg, virtual colonoscopy, fecal immunochemical test). Responses were used to calculate the overall importance of test attributes, the relative importance of attribute levels, and to identify factors associated with preferences.

Results: Two hundred twelve primary care patients were recruited to the study (74 white, 60 African American, 78 Hispanic). Of the guideline-recommended tests, 37% preferred COL, 31% FOBT, 15% BE, and 9% SIG. Ratings of new technology tests were significantly (P < 0.05) higher than ratings of guideline-recommended tests. The order of the importance of attributes was: what the test involved (37%), accuracy (19%), frequency (17%), discomfort (15%), and preparation (13%). Part-worth utilities for 1 attribute showed that collecting a stool sample was most preferable and endoscopy without sedation least preferable. Multivariate regression found that race/ethnicity and specific test attributes were independently associated (P < 0.05) with test preferences.

Conclusions: Primary care patients have distinct preferences for CRC screening tests that can be linked to test attributes. Racial/ethnic variations in test preferences persist when controlling for attributes. Tailoring screening recommendations to patients' preferences may increase screening adherence.

PubMed Disclaimer

• Effects of tailored knowledge enhancement on colorectal cancer screening preference across ethnic and language groups.

  Jerant A, Kravitz RL, Fiscella K, Sohler N, Romero RL, Parnes B, Aguilar-Gaxiola S, Turner C, Dvorak S, Franks P. Jerant A, et al. Patient Educ Couns. 2013 Jan;90(1):103-10. doi: 10.1016/j.pec.2012.08.017. Epub 2012 Sep 15. Patient Educ Couns. 2013. PMID: 22985627 Free PMC article.

• Adherence to colorectal cancer screening: a randomized clinical trial of competing strategies.

  Inadomi JM, Vijan S, Janz NK, Fagerlin A, Thomas JP, Lin YV, Muñoz R, Lau C, Somsouk M, El-Nachef N, Hayward RA. Inadomi JM, et al. Arch Intern Med. 2012 Apr 9;172(7):575-82. doi: 10.1001/archinternmed.2012.332. Arch Intern Med. 2012. PMID: 22493463 Free PMC article. Clinical Trial.

• Informed decision making changes test preferences for colorectal cancer screening in a diverse population.

  Shokar NK, Carlson CA, Weller SC. Shokar NK, et al. Ann Fam Med. 2010 Mar-Apr;8(2):141-50. doi: 10.1370/afm.1054. Ann Fam Med. 2010. PMID: 20212301 Free PMC article.

• Black and White Differences in Colorectal Cancer Screening and Screening Outcomes: A Narrative Review.

  Rutter CM, Knudsen AB, Lin JS, Bouskill KE. Rutter CM, et al. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev. 2021 Jan;30(1):3-12. doi: 10.1158/1055-9965.EPI-19-1537. Epub 2020 Nov 3. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev. 2021. PMID: 33144285 Free PMC article. Review.

• Racial disparities in colorectal cancer.

  Kauh J, Brawley OW, Berger M. Kauh J, et al. Curr Probl Cancer. 2007 May-Jun;31(3):123-33. doi: 10.1016/j.currproblcancer.2007.01.002. Curr Probl Cancer. 2007. PMID: 17543944 Review. No abstract available.

• Evaluation of Colonoscopy and Sigmoidoscopy Utilization for Colorectal Cancer Screening in Georgia, USA.

  Ansa BE, Hoffman Z, Lewis N, Datta B, Islam KM, Johnson JA. Ansa BE, et al. Curr Oncol. 2022 Nov 20;29(11):8955-8966. doi: 10.3390/curroncol29110703. Curr Oncol. 2022. PMID: 36421356 Free PMC article.

• Psychosocial risk profiles among black male Veterans Administration patients non-adherent with colorectal cancer screening.

  BeLue R, Menon U, Kinney AY, Szalacha LA. BeLue R, et al. Psychooncology. 2011 Nov;20(11):1151-60. doi: 10.1002/pon.1838. Epub 2010 Oct 7. Psychooncology. 2011. PMID: 20928929 Free PMC article.

• Patient-physician colorectal cancer screening discussions: delivery of the 5A's in practice.

  Lafata JE, Cooper GS, Divine G, Flocke SA, Oja-Tebbe N, Stange KC, Wunderlich T. Lafata JE, et al. Am J Prev Med. 2011 Nov;41(5):480-6. doi: 10.1016/j.amepre.2011.07.018. Am J Prev Med. 2011. PMID: 22011418 Free PMC article.

• Bringing an organizational perspective to the optimal number of colorectal cancer screening options debate.

  Partin MR, Powell AA, Burgess DJ, Wilt TJ. Partin MR, et al. J Gen Intern Med. 2012 Mar;27(3):376-80. doi: 10.1007/s11606-011-1870-y. Epub 2011 Sep 14. J Gen Intern Med. 2012. PMID: 21915765 Free PMC article. Review.

• A descriptive review on methods to prioritize outcomes in a health care context.

  Janssen IM, Gerhardus A, Schröer-Günther MA, Scheibler F. Janssen IM, et al. Health Expect. 2015 Dec;18(6):1873-93. doi: 10.1111/hex.12256. Epub 2014 Aug 25. Health Expect. 2015. PMID: 25156207 Free PMC article. Review.

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