Colonoscopy education delivered via the patient portal does not improve adherence to scheduled first-time screening colonoscopy.

Background and study aims Non-adherence to scheduled colonoscopy burdens endoscopic practices and innovative approaches to improve adherence are needed. We aimed to assess the effect of an educational video emphasizing colonoscopy importance delivered through the electronic health record patient portal upon "no-show" and late cancellation rates (non-adherence) in patients scheduled for first-time screening colonoscopy. Patients and methods We conducted a single center randomized controlled trial among patients scheduled for their first screening colonoscopy. Patients were randomized to routine care ("control") or video education ("video"). Control patients received a portal message 14 days prior to colonoscopy date; video patients additionally received a link to the educational video. Results In total, 830 patients (59 % female, median age 55 years) were randomized ("control": 406; "video": 424). Nearly all (88 %) opened the message; in the video arm, most (72 %) watched a majority of the video. Overall, 80 % attended their scheduled colonoscopy appointment (late cancel: 18 %, "no show": 1 %) and 90 % underwent colonoscopy within 3 months of appointment. Adherence rates did not differ between video and control arms for the scheduled appointment (OR 1.2, CI 0.9-1.8) or for colonoscopy within 3 months of scheduled appointment (OR 1.3, CI 0.8-2.1). Bowel preparation quality did not differ between the groups. Conclusion Most patients scheduled for colonoscopy will open a patient portal message and, when delivered, watch an educational video. However, delivery of an educational video two weeks prior to screening colonoscopy appointment did not improve adherence.

The Effects of a Multicomponent Colorectal Cancer Screening Intervention on Knowledge, Recommendation, and Screening among Underserved Populations.

This trial tested a multicomponent intervention to increase colorectal cancer (CRC) screening among underserved patients. Participants were randomized to: (1) physician + patient intervention, (2) physician-only intervention, or (3) usual care (UC). Study outcomes included patient knowledge, physician recommendation of CRC screening, and screening completion via colonoscopy or stool tests. Among 538 participants, those exposed to the physician + patient intervention had significantly increased knowledge over patients in physician-only (p=.0008) or UC arms (p=.0003). However, there were no statistically significant differences in completion of CRC screening, with 10%, 20%, and 16% of UC, physician-only, and physician + patient participants screened, respectively. In UC, all completed screenings were colonoscopy, whereas in the physician-only and physician + patient arms, 39% and 46% of completed tests were via stool test, respectively. The multicomponent intervention did not increase overall CRC screening, yet results underscore the need to provide patients options for completing CRC screening.

Guidelines of care for the management of acne vulgaris.

Acne is one of the most common disorders treated by dermatologists and other health care providers. While it most often affects adolescents, it is not uncommon in adults and can also be seen in children. This evidence-based guideline addresses important clinical questions that arise in its management. Issues from grading of acne to the topical and systemic management of the disease are reviewed. Suggestions on use are provided based on available evidence.

Comparing the Performance of the S-TOFHLA and NVS Among and Between English and Spanish Speakers.

Given the growing body of evidence demonstrating the significant implications of health literacy on a myriad of outcomes, researchers continue to incorporate health literacy metrics in studies. With this proliferation in measurement of health literacy in research, it has become increasingly important to understand how various health literacy tools perform in specific populations. Our objective was to compare the performance of two widely used tests, the Short Test of Functional Health Literacy in Adults (S-TOFHLA) and the Newest Vital Sign (NVS) among and between a sample of English and Spanish-speaking patients. Adults (N = 402) ages 50-75 years participating in a trial to promote colorectal cancer screening completed in-person interviews which included both measures of health literacy. In the full sample, the tests were moderately correlated (r = 0.69, p < .0001); however, there was a stronger correlation among those completing the test in Spanish (r = 0.83) as compared with English (r = 0.58, p < .0001). English speakers more often were categorized as having adequate literacy by the S-TOFHLA as compared with the NVS, whereas Spanish speakers scored consistently low on both instruments. These findings indicate that the categorization of participants into levels of literacy is likely to vary, depending on whether the NVS or S-TOFHLA is used for assessment, a factor which researchers should be aware of when selecting literacy assessments.

The Effectiveness of a Physician-Only and Physician-Patient Intervention on Colorectal Cancer Screening Discussions Between Providers and African American and Latino Patients.

BACKGROUND: Physician recommendation of colorectal cancer (CRC) screening is a critical facilitator of screening completion. Providing patients a choice of screening options may increase CRC screening completion, particularly among racial and ethnic minorities. OBJECTIVE: Our purpose was to assess the effectiveness of physician-only and physician-patient interventions on increasing rates of CRC screening discussions as compared to usual care. DESIGN: This study was quasi-experimental. Clinics were allocated to intervention or usual care; patients in intervention clinics were randomized to receipt of patient intervention. PARTICIPANTS: Patients aged 50 to 75 years, due for CRC screening, receiving care at either a federally qualified health care center or an academic health center participated in the study. INTERVENTION: Intervention physicians received continuous quality improvement and communication skills training. Intervention patients watched an educational video immediately before their appointment. MAIN MEASURES: Rates of patient-reported 1) CRC screening discussions, and 2) discussions of more than one screening test. KEY RESULTS: The physician-patient intervention (n = 167) resulted in higher rates of CRC screening discussions compared to both physician-only intervention (n = 183; 61.1 % vs.50.3 %, p = 0.008) and usual care (n = 153; 61.1 % vs. 34.0 % p = 0.03). More discussions of specific CRC screening tests and discussions of more than one test occurred in the intervention arms than in usual care (44.6 % vs. 22.9 %,p = 0.03) and (5.1 % vs. 2.0 %, p = 0.036), respectively, but discussion of more than one test was uncommon. Across all arms, 143 patients (28.4 %) reported discussion of colonoscopy only; 21 (4.2 %) reported discussion of both colonoscopy and stool tests. CONCLUSIONS: Compared to usual care and a physician-only intervention, a physician-patient intervention increased rates of CRC screening discussions, yet discussions overwhelmingly focused solely on colonoscopy. In underserved patient populations where access to colonoscopy may be limited, interventions encouraging discussions of both stool tests and colonoscopy may be needed.

Implementation of EHR-based strategies to improve outpatient CAD care.

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the effects of a multifaceted quality improvement intervention during 2 time periods on 4 coronary artery disease [CAD] measures in 4 primary care practices. During the first phase, electronic reminders prompted physicians to order indicated medications or record contraindications and refusals (exceptions). In the second phase, physicians also received reports about their performance (including lists of patients not satisfying these measures), and financial incentives were announced. STUDY DESIGN: Time series analysis. METHODS: Adult CAD patients seen within the preceding 18 months were included. The primary outcome was the performance on each measure (proportion of eligible patients satisfying each measure after removing those with exceptions). Secondary outcomes were the proportion with the medication on their medication list, and the proportion with exceptions. RESULTS: Median performance at baseline was 78.8% for antiplatelet treatment, 85.1% for statin treatment, 77.0% for beta-blocker after myocardial infarction (MI), and 67.1% for angiotensinconverting enzyme inhibitor or angiotensin receptor blocker after MI. Performance improved slightly for 3 measures during the first phase and improved more substantially for all 4 measures during the second phase. For 3 of 4 measures, however, documentation of exceptions increased but not medication prescribing. Most exceptions were judged to be appropriate by peer review. CONCLUSIONS: Physicians responded more to the combination of feedback and financial incentives than they had to electronic reminders alone. High performance was only achieved for 1 of 4 measures and recording of exceptions rather than increases in medication prescribing accounted for most of the observed improvements.

Effects of standardized outreach for patients refusing preventive services: a quasiexperimental quality improvement study.

OBJECTIVE: To determine the effect of standardized outreach on the receipt of preventive services for patients whose physicians record that the patient refused the service. STUDY DESIGN: Prospective observational study of a quality improvement intervention using a nonrandomly assigned comparator group. METHODS: Patients from a large internal medicine practice with recorded refusals to preventive services were included. A nonclinician care manager mailed plain-language educational brochures, attempted telephone contact, and provided logistical assistance. The primary patient outcome was the time from refusal to first receipt of a refused service (colorectal cancer screening, breast cancer screening [mammography], cervical cancer screening, osteoporosis screening [bone density testing], or pneumococcal vaccination). We compared the time to completion of refused sevices during the period when outreach was performed (February 8, 2008, to November 25, 2008 [outreach cohort]), and during a subsequent period when refusals were recorded but no outreach was performed (November 26, 2008, to December 1, 2009 [nonintervention cohort]), using Cox proportional hazards regression models adjusted for patient characteristics. We recorded the time spent performing outreach. RESULTS: In total, 407 patients refused 520 preventive services in the outreach cohort, and 378 patients refused 510 services in the nonintervention cohort. After 6 months of follow-up, 6.1% of the outreach cohort and 4.8% of the nonintervention cohort had received a refused service (adjusted hazard ratio, 1.3; 95% confidence interval, 0.7-2.5). The care manager spent 214 hours performing the outreach. CONCLUSIONS: Standardized educational outreach was not a promising strategy for improving preventive services use among patients who have refused services recommended by their physician. The amount of time required to perform the outreach was substantial.

Changes in performance after implementation of a multifaceted electronic-health-record-based quality improvement system.

BACKGROUND: Electronic health record (EHR) systems have the potential to revolutionize quality improvement (QI) methods by enhancing quality measurement and integrating multiple proven QI strategies. OBJECTIVES: To implement and evaluate a multifaceted QI intervention using EHR tools to improve quality measurement (including capture of contraindications and patient refusals), make point-of-care reminders more accurate, and provide more valid and responsive clinician feedback (including lists of patients not receiving essential medications) for 16 chronic disease and preventive service measures. DESIGN: Time series analysis at a large internal medicine practice using a commercial EHR. SUBJECTS: All adult patients eligible for each measure (range approximately 100-7500). MEASURES: The proportion of eligible patients who satisfied each measure after removing those with exceptions from the denominator. RESULTS: During the year before the intervention, performance improved significantly for 8 measures. During the year after the intervention, performance improved significantly for 14 measures. For 9 measures, the primary outcome improved more rapidly during the intervention year than during the previous year (P < 0.001 for 8 measures, P = 0.02 for 1). Four other measures improved at rates that were not significantly different from the previous year. Improvements resulted from increases in patients receiving the service, documentation of exceptions, or a combination of both. For 5 drug-prescribing measures, more than half of physicians achieved 100% performance. CONCLUSIONS: Implementation of a multifaceted QI intervention using EHR tools to improve quality measurement and the accuracy and timeliness of clinician feedback improved performance and/or accelerated the rate of improvement for multiple measures simultaneously.

Frequency of inappropriate medical exceptions to quality measures.

BACKGROUND: Quality improvement programs that allow physicians to document medical reasons for deviating from guidelines preserve clinicians' judgment while enabling them to strive for high performance. However, physician misconceptions or gaming potentially limit programs. OBJECTIVE: To implement computerized decision support with mechanisms to document medical exceptions to quality measures and to perform peer review of exceptions and provide feedback when appropriate. DESIGN: Observational study. SETTING: Large internal medicine practice. PARTICIPANTS: Patients eligible for 1 or more quality measures. MEASUREMENTS: A peer-review panel judged medical exceptions to 16 chronic disease and prevention quality measures as appropriate, inappropriate, or of uncertain appropriateness. Medical records were reviewed after feedback was given to determine whether care changed. RESULTS: Physicians recorded 650 standardized medical exceptions during 7 months. The reporting tool was used without any medical reason 36 times (5.5%). Of the remaining 614 exceptions, 93.6% were medically appropriate, 3.1% were inappropriate, and 3.3% were of uncertain appropriateness. Frequencies of inappropriate exceptions were 7 (6.9%) for coronary heart disease, 0 (0%) for heart failure, 10 (10.8%) for diabetes, and 2 (0.6%) for preventive services. After physicians received direct feedback about inappropriate exceptions, 8 of 19 (42%) changed management. The peer-review process took less than 5 minutes per case, but for each change in clinical care, 65 reviews were required. LIMITATION: The findings could differ at other sites or if financial incentives were in place. CONCLUSION: Physician-recorded medical exceptions were correct most of the time. Peer review of medical exceptions can identify myths and misconceptions, but the process needs to be more efficient to be sustainable. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality.

Medical exceptions to decision support: a tool to identify provider misconceptions and direct academic detailing.

Clinical decision support can be used to capture the medical exceptions that justify deviations from guideline-based care. Peer review of this data is a potentially valuable and efficient means of identifying physician misconceptions or gaps in the medical knowledge base. Our early experience performing peer review on medical exceptions recorded through computerized point-of-care alerts shows that most medical exceptions were legitimate. Twelve percent of exceptions were inappropriate and 10% involved areas of considerable medical uncertainty.

Evidence-based interventions to improve the palliative care of pain, dyspnea, and depression at the end of life: a clinical practice guideline from the American College of Physicians.

RECOMMENDATION 1: In patients with serious illness at the end of life, clinicians should regularly assess patients for pain, dyspnea, and depression. (Grade: strong recommendation, moderate quality of evidence.) RECOMMENDATION 2: In patients with serious illness at the end of life, clinicians should use therapies of proven effectiveness to manage pain. For patients with cancer, this includes nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, opioids, and bisphosphonates. (Grade: strong recommendation, moderate quality of evidence.) RECOMMENDATION 3: In patients with serious illness at the end of life, clinicians should use therapies of proven effectiveness to manage dyspnea, which include opioids in patients with unrelieved dyspnea and oxygen for short-term relief of hypoxemia. (Grade: strong recommendation, moderate quality of evidence.) RECOMMENDATION 4: In patients with serious illness at the end of life, clinicians should use therapies of proven effectiveness to manage depression. For patients with cancer, this includes tricyclic antidepressants, selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors, or psychosocial intervention. (Grade: strong recommendation, moderate quality of evidence.) RECOMMENDATION 5: Clinicians should ensure that advance care planning, including completion of advance directives, occurs for all patients with serious illness. (Grade: strong recommendation, low quality of evidence.).

Process evaluation in an intervention designed to improve rates of colorectal cancer screening in a VA medical center.

Colorectal cancer (CRC) is the third most common cancer in the United States. Although CRC screening is recommended for individuals 50 years and older, screening completion rates are low. This can be attributed to provider and patient barriers. We developed an intervention to improve provider recommendation and patient screening among noncompliant male veterans in a 2-year randomized controlled trial and examined the relationship between participation and study outcomes among patients and providers. Overall, providers who attended intervention sessions recommended CRC screening during 64% of patient visits and providers who did not attend any intervention sessions recommended screening during 54% of visits (p < .01). Patients of providers who attended intervention sessions also were more likely to be screened (42% versus 29%, p < .05). The patient intervention did not have the desired impact. The subgroup of patients in the patient intervention was not more likely to complete CRC screening.

Calcium/vitamin D supplementation and cardiovascular events.

BACKGROUND: Individuals with vascular or valvular calcification are at increased risk for coronary events, but the relationship between calcium consumption and cardiovascular events is uncertain. We evaluated the risk of coronary and cerebrovascular events in the Women's Health Initiative randomized trial of calcium plus vitamin D supplementation. METHODS AND RESULTS: We randomized 36,282 postmenopausal women 50 to 79 years of age at 40 clinical sites to calcium carbonate 500 mg with vitamin D 200 IU twice daily or to placebo. Cardiovascular disease was a prespecified secondary efficacy outcome. During 7 years of follow-up, myocardial infarction or coronary heart disease death was confirmed for 499 women assigned to calcium/vitamin D and 475 women assigned to placebo (hazard ratio, 1.04; 95% confidence interval, 0.92 to 1.18). Stroke was confirmed among 362 women assigned to calcium/vitamin D and 377 assigned to placebo (hazard ratio, 0.95; 95% confidence interval, 0.82 to 1.10). In subgroup analyses, women with higher total calcium intake (diet plus supplements) at baseline were not at higher risk for coronary events (P=0.91 for interaction) or stroke (P=0.14 for interaction) if assigned to active calcium/vitamin D. CONCLUSIONS: Calcium/vitamin D supplementation neither increased nor decreased coronary or cerebrovascular risk in generally healthy postmenopausal women over a 7-year use period.

Costs and cost effectiveness of a health care provider-directed intervention to promote colorectal cancer screening among Veterans.

PURPOSE: Colorectal cancer screening is underused, particularly in the Veterans Affairs (VA) population. In a randomized controlled trial, a health care provider-directed intervention that offered quarterly feedback to physicians on their patients' colorectal cancer screening rates led to a 9% increase in colorectal cancer screening rates among veterans. The objective of this secondary analysis was to assess the cost effectiveness of the colorectal cancer screening promotion intervention. METHODS: Providers in the intervention arm attended an educational workshop on colorectal cancer screening and received confidential feedback on individual and group-specific colorectal cancer screening rates. The primary end point was completion of colorectal cancer screening tests. Sensitivity analyses investigated cost-effectiveness estimates varying the data collection methods, costs of labor and technology, and the effectiveness of the intervention. RESULTS: Rates of colorectal cancer screening for the intervention versus control arms were 41.3% v 32.4%, respectively (P < .05). The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was dollar 978 per additional veteran screened based on feedback reports generated from manual review of records. However, if feedback reports could be generated from information technology systems, sensitivity analyses indicate that the cost-effectiveness estimate would decrease to dollar 196 per additional veteran screened. CONCLUSION: An intervention based on quarterly feedback reports to physicians improved colorectal cancer screening rates at a VA medical center. This intervention would be cost effective if relevant data could be generated by existing information technology systems. Our findings may have broad applicability because a 2005 Medicare initiative will provide the VA electronic medical record system as a free benefit to all US physicians.

Development of a brief survey on colon cancer screening knowledge and attitudes among veterans.

INTRODUCTION: Poor knowledge of and negative attitudes toward available screening tests may account in part for colorectal cancer screening rates being the lowest among 17 quality measures reported for the Department of Veterans Affairs health care system, the largest integrated health system in the United States. The purpose of this study was to develop a brief assessment tool to evaluate knowledge and attitudes among veterans toward colorectal cancer screening options. METHODS: A 44-item questionnaire was developed to assess knowledge, attitudes, and beliefs about colorectal cancer and screening and was then administered as part of an ongoing randomized controlled trial among 388 veterans receiving care in a general medicine clinic. Sixteen candidate items on colorectal cancer knowledge, attitudes, and beliefs were selected for further evaluation using principal components analysis. Two sets of items were then further analyzed. RESULTS: Because the Cronbach alpha for beliefs was low (alpha = 0.06), the beliefs subscale was deleted from further consideration. The final scale consisted of seven items: a four-item attitude subscale (alpha = 0.73) and a three-item knowledge subscale (alpha = 0.59). Twelve-month follow-up data were used to evaluate predictive validity; improved knowledge and attitudes were significantly associated with completion of flexible sigmoidoscopy (P = .004) and completion of either flexible sigmoidoscopy or colonoscopy (P = .02). CONCLUSION: The two-factor scale offers a parsimonious and reliable measure of colorectal cancer screening knowledge and attitudes among veterans. This colorectal Cancer Screening Survey (CSS) may especially be useful as an evaluative tool in developing and testing of interventions designed to improve screening rates within this population.

Colorectal cancer screening among African-American and white male veterans.

BACKGROUND: Population-based studies from Medicare and privately insured individuals have consistently identified lower rates of colorectal cancer-screening tests among African-American versus white individuals. The purpose of this study was to evaluate whether, at a Veterans Affairs (VA) medical center, similar racial/ethnic differences in colorectal cancer screening could be identified. METHODS: Study participants were male veterans, aged > or =50, attending a general medicine clinic in a VA hospital, who had not had either a fecal occult blood test (FOBT) within the past year or a flexible sigmoidoscopy/colonoscopy within the past 5 years. Based on review of electronic medical records, rates of physician recommendation for FOBT, flexible sigmoidoscopy, or colonoscopy, and patient completion of these tests were obtained and compared by race/ethnicity. RESULTS: Sixty percent of 1599 veterans had not undergone recent colorectal cancer screening. Physicians recommended colorectal screening tests equally among African-American and white patients (71.0% vs 68.2%, p=0.44). African-American patients were 1.3 times more likely than white patients to receive colorectal screening procedures (36.3% vs 28.9%, p=0.03). CONCLUSIONS: In contrast to other settings, in a general medicine clinic at a VA hospital, rates of colorectal cancer-screening tests were not lower for African-American patients compared to white patients.

Ethnicity and breast cancer: factors influencing differences in incidence and outcome.

BACKGROUND: The lower breast cancer incidence in minority women and the higher breast cancer mortality in African American women than in white women are largely unexplained. The influence of breast cancer risk factors on these differences has received little attention. METHODS: Racial/ethnic differences in breast cancer incidence and outcome were examined in 156,570 postmenopausal women participating in the Women's Health Initiative. Detailed information on breast cancer risk factors including mammography was collected, and participants were followed prospectively for breast cancer incidence, pathological breast cancer characteristics, and breast cancer mortality. Comparisons of breast cancer incidence and mortality across racial/ethnic groups were estimated as hazard ratios (HRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) from Cox proportional hazard models. Tumor characteristics were compared as odds ratios (ORs) and 95% confidence intervals in logistic regression models. RESULTS: After median follow-up of 6.3 years, 3938 breast cancers were diagnosed. Age-adjusted incidences for all minority groups (i.e., African American, Hispanic, American Indian/Alaskan Native, and Asian/Pacific Islander) were lower than for white women, but adjustment for breast cancer risk factors accounted for the differences for all but African Americans (HR = 0.75, 95% CI = 0.61 to 0.92) corresponding to 29 cases and 44 cases per 10,000 person years for African American and white women, respectively. Breast cancers in African American women had unfavorable characteristics; 32% of those in African Americans but only 10% in whites were both high grade and estrogen receptor negative (adjusted OR = 4.70, 95% CI = 3.12 to 7.09). Moreover, after adjustment for prognostic factors, African American women had higher mortality after breast cancer than white women (HR = 1.79, 95% CI = 1.05 to 3.05) corresponding to nine and six deaths per 10 000 person-years from diagnosis in African American and white women, respectively. CONCLUSION: Differences in breast cancer incidence rates between most racial/ethnic groups were largely explained by risk factor distribution except in African Americans. However, breast cancers in African American women more commonly had characteristics of poor prognosis, which may contribute to their increased mortality after diagnosis.

Health care provider-directed intervention to increase colorectal cancer screening among veterans: results of a randomized controlled trial.

PURPOSE: Colorectal cancer screening is the most underused cancer screening tool in the United States. The purpose of this study was to test whether a health care provider-directed intervention increased colorectal cancer screening rates. PATIENTS AND METHODS: The study was a randomized controlled trial conducted at two clinic firms at a Veterans Affairs Medical Center. The records of 5,711 patients were reviewed; 1,978 patients were eligible. Eligible patients were men aged 50 years and older who had no personal or family history of colorectal cancer or polyps, had not received colorectal cancer screening, and had at least one visit to the clinic during the study period. Health care providers in the intervention firm attended a workshop on colorectal cancer screening. Every 4 to 6 months, they attended quality improvement workshops where they received group screening rates, individualized confidential feedback, and training on improving communication with patients with limited literacy skills. Medical records were reviewed for colorectal cancer screening recommendations and completion. Literacy level was assessed in a subset of patients. RESULTS: Colorectal cancer screening was recommended for 76.0% of patients in the intervention firm and for 69.4% of controls (P = .02). Screening tests were completed by 41.3% of patients in the intervention group versus 32.4% of controls (P = .003). Among patients with health literacy skills less than ninth grade, screening was completed by 55.7% of patients in the intervention group versus 30% of controls (P < .01). CONCLUSION: A provider-directed intervention with feedback on individual and firm-specific screening rates significantly increased both recommendations and colorectal cancer screening completion rates among veterans.

Colorectal cancer screening knowledge, attitudes, and beliefs among veterans: does literacy make a difference?

PURPOSE: To evaluate whether lower literacy is associated with poorer knowledge and more negative attitudes and beliefs toward colorectal cancer screening among veterans without recent colorectal cancer screening. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Three hundred seventy-seven male veterans, age 50 years and older, who had not undergone recent colorectal cancer screening, were surveyed about their knowledge, attitudes, and beliefs regarding colorectal cancer screening. Patients' literacy was assessed with the Rapid Estimate of Adult Literacy in Medicine, an individually administered screening test for reading. RESULTS: Thirty-six percent of the 377 men had an eighth grade literacy level or higher. Men with lower literacy were 3.5 times as likely not to have heard about colorectal cancer (8.8% v 2.5%; P =.006), 1.5 times as likely not to know about screening tests (58.4% v 40.9%; P =.0001), and were more likely to have negative attitudes about fecal occult blood testing (FOBT), but not about flexible sigmoidoscopy. Specifically, men with lower literacy skills were two times as likely to be worried that FOBT was messy (26.7% v 13.3%; P =.008), 1.5 times as likely to feel that FOBT was inconvenient (28.7% v 18%; P =.05), and four times as likely to state they would not use an FOBT kit even if their physician recommended it (17.9% v 4.0%; P =.02). CONCLUSION: Limited literacy may be an overlooked barrier in colorectal cancer screening among veterans.