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?
Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev. 2010 Nov;19(11):2821-5. doi: 10.1158/1055-9965.EPI-10-0695. Epub 2010 Sep 17.
4
Colorectal cancer screening adherence in a general population.
Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev. 2004 Apr;13(4):654-7.
5
A randomized trial of direct mailing of fecal occult blood tests to increase colorectal cancer screening.
J Natl Cancer Inst. 2004 May 19;96(10):770-80. doi: 10.1093/jnci/djh134.
7
The compliance rate for the second diagnostic evaluation after a positive fecal occult blood test: A systematic review and meta-analysis.
United European Gastroenterol J. 2019 Apr;7(3):424-448. doi: 10.1177/2050640619828185. Epub 2019 Feb 6.
10
Barriers and Facilitators of Colorectal Cancer Screening in a Federally Qualified Health Center (FQHC).
J Am Board Fam Med. 2019 Mar-Apr;32(2):180-190. doi: 10.3122/jabfm.2019.02.180205.

引用本文的文献

2
Multi-cancer early detection tests: a strategy for improvement.
BMJ Oncol. 2024 Jan 9;3(1):e000184. doi: 10.1136/bmjonc-2023-000184. eCollection 2024.
4
From guideline to practice: New shared decision-making tools for colorectal cancer screening from the American Cancer Society.
CA Cancer J Clin. 2018 Jul;68(4):246-249. doi: 10.3322/caac.21459. Epub 2018 May 30.
6
Physician use of persuasion and colorectal cancer screening.
Transl Behav Med. 2015 Mar;5(1):87-93. doi: 10.1007/s13142-014-0284-x.
7
Explaining persistent under-use of colonoscopic cancer screening in African Americans: a systematic review.
Prev Med. 2015 Feb;71:40-8. doi: 10.1016/j.ypmed.2014.11.022. Epub 2014 Dec 4.
8
Influence of provider discussion and specific recommendation on colorectal cancer screening uptake among U.S. adults.
Prev Med. 2014 Oct;67:1-5. doi: 10.1016/j.ypmed.2014.06.022. Epub 2014 Jun 23.
9
The effects of test preference, test access, and navigation on colorectal cancer screening.
Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev. 2014 Aug;23(8):1521-8. doi: 10.1158/1055-9965.EPI-13-1176. Epub 2014 May 9.
10
Risk assessment and clinical decision making for colorectal cancer screening.
Health Expect. 2015 Oct;18(5):1327-38. doi: 10.1111/hex.12110. Epub 2013 Jul 30.

本文引用的文献

1
Patient-reported barriers to colorectal cancer screening: a mixed-methods analysis.
Am J Prev Med. 2010 May;38(5):508-16. doi: 10.1016/j.amepre.2010.01.021.
2
The relative importance of patient-reported barriers to colorectal cancer screening.
Am J Prev Med. 2010 May;38(5):499-507. doi: 10.1016/j.amepre.2010.01.020. Epub 2010 Mar 28.
3
Behind closed doors: physician-patient discussions about colorectal cancer screening.
J Gen Intern Med. 2009 Nov;24(11):1228-35. doi: 10.1007/s11606-009-1108-4. Epub 2009 Sep 18.
4
Screening for colorectal cancer: the glass is half full.
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.
Ann Intern Med. 2008 Nov 4;149(9):627-37. doi: 10.7326/0003-4819-149-9-200811040-00243. Epub 2008 Oct 6.
8
Informed decision-making and colorectal cancer screening: is it occurring in primary care?
Med Care. 2008 Sep;46(9 Suppl 1):S23-9. doi: 10.1097/MLR.0b013e31817dc496.
9
Preferences for colorectal cancer screening among racially/ethnically diverse primary care patients.
Med Care. 2008 Sep;46(9 Suppl 1):S10-6. doi: 10.1097/MLR.0b013e31817d932e.
10
Effect of incentives and mailing features on online health program enrollment.
Am J Prev Med. 2008 May;34(5):382-8. doi: 10.1016/j.amepre.2008.01.028.

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验