Suppr超能文献

讨论结直肠癌筛查方案是否会增加患者的困惑?

Is discussion of colorectal cancer screening options associated with heightened patient confusion?

机构信息

Department of Epidemiology and Community Health, Virginia Commonwealth University, Richmond, VA 23298-0212, USA.

出版信息

Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev. 2010 Nov;19(11):2821-5. doi: 10.1158/1055-9965.EPI-10-0695. Epub 2010 Sep 17.

Abstract

BACKGROUND

Clinical guidelines recommend offering patients options for colorectal cancer (CRC) screening, but the modalities vary by frequency, accuracy, preparations, discomfort, and cost, which may cause confusion and reduce screening rates. We examined whether patients reported confusion about the options and whether confusion was associated with socio-demographic characteristics, number of options discussed, and adherence.

METHODS

Patients ages 50 to 75 years who had visited a clinician within 2 years were randomly selected for a cross-sectional study (n = 6,100). A questionnaire mailed in 2007 asked the following: whether a clinician had ever discussed CRC screening options; which of four recommended tests (i.e., fecal occult blood testing, flexible sigmoidoscopy, colonoscopy, and barium enema) were presented; and whether the options were confusing. Analyses were restricted to respondents who reported discussing one or more screening options (n = 1,707). Weighted frequencies were calculated and multivariate logistic regression was done.

RESULTS

The sample was 55.5% female, 15.6% African American, and 83.2% adherent to screening recommendations, and 56.0% had discussed two or more screening options. In adjusted analyses, nonadherent patients reported greater confusion than adherent patients (P < 0.01). Adults who discussed two or more options were 1.6 times more likely to be confused than those who discussed one option [95% confidence interval (CI), 1.08-2.26]. Patients who reported being confused were 1.8 times more likely to be nonadherent to screening than those who did not (95% CI, 1.14-2.75).

CONCLUSIONS

Our study provides the first empirical evidence linking multiple options with confusion and confusion with screening adherence.

IMPACT

Confusion may act as a barrier to screening and should be considered in public health messages and interventions.

摘要

背景

临床指南建议为结直肠癌(CRC)筛查的患者提供多种选择,但这些方法在频率、准确性、准备、不适和成本方面存在差异,这可能会导致混淆并降低筛查率。我们研究了患者是否对这些选择感到困惑,以及困惑是否与社会人口统计学特征、讨论的选择数量以及依从性有关。

方法

在 2007 年,我们对在过去 2 年内看过医生的年龄在 50 至 75 岁的患者进行了一项横断面研究(n=6100)。患者随机抽取并邮寄问卷,询问以下内容:医生是否曾讨论过 CRC 筛查选择;是否介绍了四项推荐的检查(即粪便潜血试验、乙状结肠镜检查、结肠镜检查和钡灌肠);以及选择是否令人困惑。分析仅限于报告讨论过一种或多种筛查选择的受访者(n=1707)。计算了加权频率,并进行了多变量逻辑回归。

结果

该样本中 55.5%为女性,15.6%为非裔美国人,83.2%符合筛查建议,56.0%的人讨论了两种或两种以上的筛查选择。在调整分析中,不依从的患者比依从的患者报告的困惑更多(P<0.01)。与讨论一种选择的患者相比,讨论两种或更多选择的患者困惑的可能性高出 1.6 倍[95%置信区间(CI),1.08-2.26]。报告困惑的患者不依从筛查的可能性是非困惑患者的 1.8 倍(95%CI,1.14-2.75)。

结论

我们的研究首次提供了实证证据,将多种选择与困惑以及困惑与筛查依从性联系起来。

意义

困惑可能是筛查的障碍,在公共卫生信息和干预措施中应予以考虑。

相似文献

1
Is discussion of colorectal cancer screening options associated with heightened patient confusion?讨论结直肠癌筛查方案是否会增加患者的困惑?
Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev. 2010 Nov;19(11):2821-5. doi: 10.1158/1055-9965.EPI-10-0695. Epub 2010 Sep 17.

引用本文的文献

2
Multi-cancer early detection tests: a strategy for improvement.多癌早期检测测试:一种改进策略。
BMJ Oncol. 2024 Jan 9;3(1):e000184. doi: 10.1136/bmjonc-2023-000184. eCollection 2024.
9
The effects of test preference, test access, and navigation on colorectal cancer screening.检测偏好、检测途径及导航对结直肠癌筛查的影响。
Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev. 2014 Aug;23(8):1521-8. doi: 10.1158/1055-9965.EPI-13-1176. Epub 2014 May 9.

本文引用的文献

4
Screening for colorectal cancer: the glass is half full.结直肠癌筛查:乐观地看还有希望。
Am J Public Health. 2009 Apr;99(4):592-4. doi: 10.2105/AJPH.2008.153858. Epub 2009 Jan 15.
6
Screening for colorectal cancer: U.S. Preventive Services Task Force recommendation statement.结直肠癌筛查:美国预防服务工作组建议声明
Ann Intern Med. 2008 Nov 4;149(9):627-37. doi: 10.7326/0003-4819-149-9-200811040-00243. Epub 2008 Oct 6.

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