Gender differences in predictors of colorectal cancer screening uptake: a national cross sectional study based on the health belief model.

BACKGROUND: Colorectal Cancer (CRC) is rapidly rising in Asia, but screening uptake remains poor. Although studies have reported gender differences in screening rates, there have been few studies assessing gender specific perceptions and barriers towards CRC screening, based on behavioral frameworks. We applied the Health Belief Model to identify gender-specific predictors of CRC screening in an Asian population. METHODS: A nationwide representative household survey was conducted on 2000 subjects aged 50 years and above in Singapore from 2007 to 2008. Screening behaviour, knowledge and beliefs on CRC screening were assessed by face-to-face structured interviews. The response rate was 88.2%. RESULTS: 26.7 percent had undergone current CRC screening with no gender difference in rates. Almost all agreed that CRC would lead to suffering (89.8%), death (84.6%) and would pose significant treatment cost and expense (83.1%). The majority (88.5%) agreed that screening aids early detection and cure but only 35.4% felt susceptible to CRC. Nearly three-quarters (74.3%) of the respondents recalled reading or hearing information on CRC in the print or broadcast media. However, only 22.6% were advised by their physicians to undergo screening. Significantly more women than men had feared a positive diagnosis, held embarrassment, pain and risk concerns about colonoscopy and had friends and family members who encouraged screening. On multivariate analysis, screening uptake showed a positive association with worry about contracting CRC and a physician's recommendation and a negative association with perceived pain about colonoscopy for both genders. For women only, screening was positively associated with having attended a public talk on CRC and having a family member with CRC, and was negatively associated with Malay race and perceived danger of colonoscopy. CONCLUSIONS: CRC screening remains poor despite high levels of awareness of its benefits in this Asian population. Race, worry about contracting cancer, psychological barriers, and cues from the doctor and a public talk on CRC were associated with screening with gender specific differences. Strategies to increase CRC screening uptake should consider gender specific approaches to address psychological barriers and increase disease susceptibility through public health education and active promotion by physicians.

Should non-expert clinician examiners be used in objective structured assessment of communication skills among final year medical undergraduates?

BACKGROUND: Adoption of the objective structured clinical examination may be hindered by shortages of clinicians within a specialty. Clinicians from other specialties should be considered as alternative, non-expert examiners. AIMS: We assessed the inter-rater agreement between expert and non-expert clinician examiners in an integrated objective structured clinical examination for final year medical undergraduates. METHODS: Pairs of expert and non-expert clinician examiners used a rating checklist to assess students in 8 oral communication stations, representing commonly encountered scenarios from medicine, paediatrics, and surgery. These included breaking bad news, managing an angry relative, taking consent for lumbar puncture; and advising a mother on asthma and febrile fits, and an adult on medication use, lifestyle changes and post-suture care of a wound. 439 students participated in the OSCE (206 in 2005, 233 in 2006). RESULTS: There was good to very good agreement (intraclass coefficient: 0.57-0.79) between expert and non-expert clinician examiners, with 5 out of 8 stations having intraclass coefficients > or =0.70. Variation between paired examiners within stations contributed the lowest variance to student scores. CONCLUSION: These findings support the use of clinicians from other specialties, as 'non-expert' examiners, to assess communication skills, using a standardized checklist, thereby reducing the demand on clinicians' time.

Prophylactic strategies for hepatitis B patients undergoing liver transplant: a cost-effectiveness analysis.

Hepatitis B immunoglobulin with lamivudine prophylaxis (LAM/HBIG) is effective in preventing Hepatitis B (HBV) recurrence posttransplant but is expensive and inconvenient. Lamivudine-resistant HBV, which has limited the usefulness of lamivudine monoprophylaxis in transplant, can now be effectively controlled with adefovir dipivoxil. We performed a cost-effectiveness analysis on the strategies of lamivudine prophylaxis with adefovir rescue(LAM/ADV) compared to combination LAM/intravenous fixed high-dose HBIG prophylaxis(LAM/ivHBIG) or LAM/intramuscular HBIG prophylaxis(LAM/imHBIG). Markov modeling was performed with analysis from societal perspective. Probability rates were derived from systematic review of the literature and cost taken from MEDICARE database. Outcome measures were incremental cost-effectiveness ratio(ICER) and cost to prevent each HBV recurrence and death. Analysis was performed at 5 years posttransplant as well as at end of life expectancy (15 years). Combination LAM/ivHBIG cost an additional USD562,000 at 15 years, while LAM/imHBIG cost an additional USD139,000 per patient compared to LAM/ADV. Although there is an estimated increase in recurrence of 53% with LAM/ADV and 7.6% increased mortality at the end of life expectancy (15 years), the ICER of LAM/ivHBIG over LAM/ADV treatment is USD760,000 per quality-adjusted life-years and for LAM/imHBIG, USD 188,000. Cost-effectiveness is most sensitive to cost of HBIG. Lamivudine prophylaxis with adefovir dipivoxil salvage offers the more cost-effective option for HBV patients undergoing liver transplant but with higher recurrence and death rate using a model that favors LAM/HBIG. Lowering the cost of HBIG maintenance will improve cost-effectiveness of LAM/HBIG strategy. In conclusion, a tailored approach based on individual risks will optimize the cost-benefit of HBV transplant prophylaxis.