Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Assessing Colorectal Cancer Screening Barriers by Two Methods.
Katz, Mira L; Young, Gregory S; Zimmermann, Barret J; Tatum, Cathy M; Paskett, Electra D.
Afiliação
  • Katz ML; College of Public Health, The Ohio State University, Suite 525 1590 North High Street, Columbus, OH, 43201, USA. Mira.Katz@osumc.edu.
  • Young GS; Comprehensive Cancer Center, The Ohio State University, Suite 525 1590 North High Street, Columbus, OH, 43201, USA. Mira.Katz@osumc.edu.
  • Zimmermann BJ; College of Medicine, The Ohio State University, Suite 525 1590 North High Street, Columbus, OH, 43201, USA. Mira.Katz@osumc.edu.
  • Tatum CM; Comprehensive Cancer Center, The Ohio State University, Suite 525 1590 North High Street, Columbus, OH, 43201, USA.
  • Paskett ED; College of Public Health, The Ohio State University, Suite 525 1590 North High Street, Columbus, OH, 43201, USA.
J Cancer Educ ; 33(3): 536-543, 2018 06.
Article em En | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-27933460
ABSTRACT
Colorectal cancer (CRC) is commonly diagnosed in the USA despite screening tests that have decreased CRC incidence and mortality. Finding the best method to identify patient-level screening barriers is important to improve CRC screening rates. A group-randomized trial was conducted among ten primary-care clinics. Clinics were randomized to a multi-level (clinic, provider, patient) CRC screening intervention or usual care (2007-2013). Subsequent to clinic- and provider-level interventions, a three-step, patient-level intervention was conducted. One step of the patient-level intervention was a CRC screening barriers counseling call conducted by a lay health advisor (LHA). During the call, two methods were used to identify CRC screening barriers. An open-ended question was used first to determine why participants had not completed screening (without probes). Subsequently, the LHA read a list of additional potential screening barriers and asked participants whether each barrier was applicable (with probes). A generalized estimating equation approach was used to compare the two methods. Participants (n = 109) were female (59%), had a mean age of 57.2 years, and were white (67%) or black (31%). Most participants had some college education or a college degree (79%), annual household income $30,000+ (60%), and health insurance (80%). The number of CRC screening barriers increased with probing compared to the open-ended question format (OR 2.10, 95% CI 1.92-2.31; p < 0.01). The ranking of reported CRC screening barriers did not vary by assessment method. However, the methodology used to document CRC screening barriers may influence the content of patient-directed interventions.
Assuntos
Palavras-chave

Texto completo: 1 Base de dados: MEDLINE Assunto principal: Neoplasias Colorretais / Detecção Precoce de Câncer Tipo de estudo: Clinical_trials / Diagnostic_studies / Prognostic_studies / Screening_studies Limite: Aged / Female / Humans / Male / Middle aged Idioma: En Ano de publicação: 2018 Tipo de documento: Article

Texto completo: 1 Base de dados: MEDLINE Assunto principal: Neoplasias Colorretais / Detecção Precoce de Câncer Tipo de estudo: Clinical_trials / Diagnostic_studies / Prognostic_studies / Screening_studies Limite: Aged / Female / Humans / Male / Middle aged Idioma: En Ano de publicação: 2018 Tipo de documento: Article