• 文献检索
  • 文档翻译
  • 深度研究
  • 学术资讯
  • Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件
  • 邀请有礼
  • 套餐&价格
  • 历史记录
应用&插件
Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件浏览器插件Mac 客户端Windows 客户端微信小程序
定价
高级版会员购买积分包购买API积分包
服务
文献检索文档翻译深度研究API 文档MCP 服务
关于我们
关于 Suppr公司介绍联系我们用户协议隐私条款
关注我们

Suppr 超能文献

核心技术专利:CN118964589B侵权必究
粤ICP备2023148730 号-1Suppr @ 2026

文献检索

告别复杂PubMed语法,用中文像聊天一样搜索,搜遍4000万医学文献。AI智能推荐,让科研检索更轻松。

立即免费搜索

文件翻译

保留排版,准确专业,支持PDF/Word/PPT等文件格式,支持 12+语言互译。

免费翻译文档

深度研究

AI帮你快速写综述,25分钟生成高质量综述,智能提取关键信息,辅助科研写作。

立即免费体验

自我报告的结直肠癌筛查行为的有效性。

Validity of self-reported colorectal cancer screening behavior.

作者信息

Baier M, Calonge N, Cutter G, McClatchey M, Schoentgen S, Hines S, Marcus A, Ahnen D

机构信息

American Medical Center Cancer Research Center, Lakewood, Colorado 80214, USA.

出版信息

Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev. 2000 Feb;9(2):229-32.

PMID:10698488
Abstract

End points for trials promoting cancer screening are often based on self-reported screening behavior. This study was designed to evaluate and optimize the reliability of a computer-assisted telephone interview for collecting self-reported colorectal cancer screening behavior. Cases who had received a fecal occult blood test (FOBT), flexible sigmoidoscopy, and/or colonoscopy, and controls who had no record of colorectal screening were identified among 40-75-year-old members of the Denver Kaiser Permanente Health Care Program and were contacted by telephone. Sensitivities and specificities of self-reported screening were calculated by comparison of subjects' recall with Kaiser Permanente records. The questionnaire was revised based upon results of the pilot phase of the study. Using the revised questionnaire, the sensitivity of self-reported screening was 96.2% for the FOBT, 94.9% for flexible sigmoidoscopy, 88.7% for colonoscopy, and 96.2% for either endoscopic screening test. The specificity of self-reported screening was 85.9% for the FOBT, 92.2% for flexible sigmoidoscopy, 96.8% for colonoscopy, and 92.0% for either endoscopic screening test. No marked differences in the accuracy of the self-reports were detected as a function of gender, age, ethnicity, or family history of colorectal cancer of the participants. Self-reports of colon cancer screening behavior can be reliably used as end points for intervention trials when carefully phrased questions are used.

摘要

促进癌症筛查的试验终点通常基于自我报告的筛查行为。本研究旨在评估和优化用于收集自我报告的结直肠癌筛查行为的计算机辅助电话访谈的可靠性。在丹佛凯撒永久医疗保健计划40至75岁的成员中,识别出接受过粪便潜血试验(FOBT)、乙状结肠镜检查和/或结肠镜检查的病例,以及没有结直肠癌筛查记录的对照者,并通过电话联系他们。通过将受试者的回忆与凯撒永久医疗保健记录进行比较,计算自我报告筛查的敏感性和特异性。根据研究试点阶段的结果对问卷进行了修订。使用修订后的问卷,自我报告筛查的敏感性对于FOBT为96.2%,对于乙状结肠镜检查为94.9%,对于结肠镜检查为88.7%,对于任何一种内镜筛查试验为96.2%。自我报告筛查的特异性对于FOBT为85.9%,对于乙状结肠镜检查为92.2%,对于结肠镜检查为96.8%,对于任何一种内镜筛查试验为92.0%。未发现自我报告的准确性因参与者的性别、年龄、种族或结直肠癌家族史而有明显差异。当使用精心措辞的问题时,结直肠癌筛查行为的自我报告可以可靠地用作干预试验的终点。

相似文献

1
Validity of self-reported colorectal cancer screening behavior.自我报告的结直肠癌筛查行为的有效性。
Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev. 2000 Feb;9(2):229-32.
2
Validation of self-reported colorectal cancer screening behavior from a mixed-mode survey of veterans.对退伍军人混合模式调查中自我报告的结直肠癌筛查行为的验证。
Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev. 2008 Apr;17(4):768-76. doi: 10.1158/1055-9965.EPI-07-0759. Epub 2008 Apr 1.
3
Reliability and validity of a questionnaire to measure colorectal cancer screening behaviors: does mode of survey administration matter?一份用于测量结直肠癌筛查行为的问卷的信效度:调查实施方式重要吗?
Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev. 2008 Apr;17(4):758-67. doi: 10.1158/1055-9965.EPI-07-2855. Epub 2008 Apr 1.
4
Validity of four self-reported colorectal cancer screening modalities in a general population: differences over time and by intervention assignment.一般人群中四种自我报告的结直肠癌筛查方式的有效性:随时间变化及干预分配的差异
Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev. 2008 Apr;17(4):777-84. doi: 10.1158/1055-9965.EPI-07-0441. Epub 2008 Apr 1.
5
Validation of self-reported history of colorectal cancer screening.自我报告的结直肠癌筛查病史的验证。
Can Fam Physician. 2007 Jul;53(7):1192-7.
6
A population-based, community estimate of total colon examination: the impact on compliance with screening for colorectal cancer.基于人群的全结肠检查社区评估:对结直肠癌筛查依从性的影响
Am J Gastroenterol. 2002 Feb;97(2):446-51. doi: 10.1111/j.1572-0241.2002.05484.x.
7
Are we doing enough to screen for colorectal cancer? Findings from the 1999 Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System.我们在结直肠癌筛查方面做得够吗?1999年行为危险因素监测系统的调查结果。
J Fam Pract. 2002 Sep;51(9):761-6.
8
Randomized trial of different screening strategies for colorectal cancer: patient response and detection rates.结直肠癌不同筛查策略的随机试验:患者反应及检出率
J Natl Cancer Inst. 2005 Mar 2;97(5):347-57. doi: 10.1093/jnci/dji050.
9
Validity of self-reported endoscopies of the large bowel and implications for estimates of colorectal cancer risk.大肠自我报告内镜检查的有效性及其对结直肠癌风险评估的影响。
Am J Epidemiol. 2007 Jul 15;166(2):130-6. doi: 10.1093/aje/kwm062. Epub 2007 Apr 23.
10
Predictors of colorectal cancer screening participation in the United States.美国结直肠癌筛查参与情况的预测因素。
Am J Gastroenterol. 2003 Sep;98(9):2082-91. doi: 10.1111/j.1572-0241.2003.07574.x.

引用本文的文献

1
Colorectal cancer screening in adults aged 45-49: provider availability, CT colonography access, and screening rates.45至49岁成年人的结直肠癌筛查:医疗服务提供者的可及性、CT结肠成像检查的可及性及筛查率
J Natl Cancer Cent. 2025 May 28;5(4):414-425. doi: 10.1016/j.jncc.2025.03.003. eCollection 2025 Aug.
2
Patient and provider factors associated with colorectal cancer screening among average risk health plan enrollees in the US, 2015-2018.2015-2018 年美国一般风险健康计划参保者中与结直肠癌筛查相关的患者和提供者因素。
BMC Health Serv Res. 2023 May 26;23(1):550. doi: 10.1186/s12913-023-09474-9.
3
Cancer beliefs and screening behaviors: The impact of neighborhood and other social determinants of health.
癌症认知与筛查行为:邻里环境及其他健康社会决定因素的影响
Front Oncol. 2023 Jan 27;13:1072259. doi: 10.3389/fonc.2023.1072259. eCollection 2023.
4
Community Health Workers to Increase Cancer Screening: 3 Community Guide Systematic Reviews.社区卫生工作者促进癌症筛查:3 项社区指南系统评价。
Am J Prev Med. 2023 Apr;64(4):579-594. doi: 10.1016/j.amepre.2022.10.016. Epub 2022 Dec 19.
5
Evaluation of a 2-1-1 Telephone Navigation Program to Increase Cancer Control Behaviors: Results From a Randomized Controlled Trial.评估 2-1-1 电话导航计划对增加癌症控制行为的效果:一项随机对照试验的结果。
Am J Health Promot. 2022 Sep;36(7):1083-1093. doi: 10.1177/08901171211041276. Epub 2022 May 5.
6
Examining the Association of Food Insecurity and Being Up-to-Date for Breast and Colorectal Cancer Screenings.探讨食品不安全与乳腺癌和结直肠癌筛查及时率之间的关联。
Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev. 2022 May 4;31(5):1017-1025. doi: 10.1158/1055-9965.EPI-21-1116.
7
Multifactorial causal beliefs and colorectal cancer screening: A structural equation modeling investigation.多因素因果信念与结直肠癌筛查:结构方程模型研究。
J Health Psychol. 2022 Sep;27(11):2463-2477. doi: 10.1177/13591053211037737. Epub 2021 Sep 28.
8
Descriptive study on subjective experience of genetic testing with respect to relationship, family planning and psychosocial wellbeing among women with lynch syndrome.林奇综合征女性关于基因检测在人际关系、计划生育和心理社会幸福感方面主观体验的描述性研究。
Hered Cancer Clin Pract. 2021 Sep 14;19(1):38. doi: 10.1186/s13053-021-00194-x.
9
Disparities in colorectal cancer screening among South Asians in New York City: a cross-sectional study.纽约市南亚人群结直肠癌筛查差异:一项横断面研究。
J Cancer Educ. 2022 Oct;37(5):1510-1518. doi: 10.1007/s13187-021-01991-7. Epub 2021 Mar 15.
10
Race/ethnicity, sex and insurance disparities in colorectal cancer screening among individuals with and without cardiovascular disease.患有和未患心血管疾病个体在结直肠癌筛查方面的种族/族裔、性别及保险差异。
Prev Med Rep. 2020 Nov 28;21:101263. doi: 10.1016/j.pmedr.2020.101263. eCollection 2021 Mar.