Suppr超能文献

多专科医疗集团实践中自我报告的结直肠癌筛查准确性的相关因素

Correlates of self-reported colorectal cancer screening accuracy in a multi-specialty medical group practice.

作者信息

White Arica, Vernon Sally W, Eberth Jan M, Tiro Jasmin A, Coan Sharon P, Abotchie Peter N, Greisinger Anthony

机构信息

School of Public Health, Division of Epidemiology, University of Texas Health Science Center, Houston, USA.

出版信息

Open J Epidemiol. 2013 Feb;3(1):20-24. doi: 10.4236/ojepi.2013.31004.

Abstract

PURPOSE

We assessed whether accuracy of self-reported screening for colorectal cancer (CRC) varied by respondent characteristics or healthcare utilization.

METHODS

From 2005 to 2007, 857 respondents aged 51 - 74 were recruited from a multi-specialty medical group practice to answer a questionnaire about their CRC screening (CRCS) behaviors. Self-reports were compared with administrative and medical records to assess concordance, sensitivity, specificity, and report-to-records ratios for overall CRCS (fecal occult blood test, sigmoidoscopy, and/or colonoscopy).

RESULTS

Concordance was good (≥0.8 to <0.9) or fair (≥0.7 to <0.8) for most subgroups; respondents with >5 visits outside the clinic had poor (<0.7) concordance. Sensitivity estimates were mostly excellent (≥0.9) or good but poor for respondents whose healthcare provider did not advise a specific CRCS test. Specificity was poor for the following respondents: 65+ years, males, college graduates, family history of CRC, >5 visits outside of the clinic, or whose healthcare provider advised a specific CRCS test. Respondents 65+ years and with >5 outside visits over-reported CRCS.

CONCLUSIONS

With few exceptions, self-reports of CRCS in an insured population is reasonably accurate across subgroups. More work is needed to replicate these findings in diverse settings and populations to better understand subgroup differences and improve measures of CRCS.

摘要

目的

我们评估了自我报告的结直肠癌(CRC)筛查准确性是否因受访者特征或医疗保健利用情况而异。

方法

2005年至2007年,从一个多专科医疗集团诊所招募了857名年龄在51 - 74岁之间的受访者,以回答一份关于他们CRC筛查(CRCS)行为的问卷。将自我报告与行政和医疗记录进行比较,以评估总体CRCS(粪便潜血试验、乙状结肠镜检查和/或结肠镜检查)的一致性、敏感性、特异性和报告与记录比率。

结果

大多数亚组的一致性良好(≥0.8至<0.9)或尚可(≥0.7至<0.8);在诊所外就诊超过5次的受访者一致性较差(<0.7)。对于医疗保健提供者未建议进行特定CRCS检测的受访者,敏感性估计大多为优秀(≥0.9)或良好,但较差。以下受访者的特异性较差:65岁及以上、男性、大学毕业生、有CRC家族史、在诊所外就诊超过5次或其医疗保健提供者建议进行特定CRCS检测的受访者。65岁及以上且在诊所外就诊超过5次的受访者CRCS报告过度。

结论

除少数例外情况外,参保人群中CRCS的自我报告在各亚组中相当准确。需要开展更多工作,在不同环境和人群中重复这些发现,以更好地理解亚组差异并改进CRCS测量方法。

相似文献

5
6
Primary care patients' understanding of colorectal cancer screening.基层医疗患者对结直肠癌筛查的理解。
Cancer Detect Prev. 2006;30(1):67-74. doi: 10.1016/j.cdp.2005.10.001. Epub 2006 Feb 2.
7
8
10
Sex-based disparities in colorectal cancer screening.结直肠癌筛查中的性别差异。
Am J Clin Oncol. 2014 Dec;37(6):555-60. doi: 10.1097/COC.0b013e318282a830.

引用本文的文献

8
Screening for colorectal cancer: using data to set prevention priorities.结直肠癌筛查:利用数据确定优先预防事项。
Cancer Causes Control. 2014 Jan;25(1):93-8. doi: 10.1007/s10552-013-0311-0. Epub 2013 Oct 22.

本文引用的文献

1
Trends in colorectal cancer test use among vulnerable populations in the United States.美国脆弱人群中结直肠癌检测使用的趋势。
Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev. 2011 Aug;20(8):1611-21. doi: 10.1158/1055-9965.EPI-11-0220. Epub 2011 Jun 8.
8
Accuracy of self-reported cancer-screening histories: a meta-analysis.自我报告的癌症筛查史的准确性:一项荟萃分析。
Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev. 2008 Apr;17(4):748-57. doi: 10.1158/1055-9965.EPI-07-2629. Epub 2008 Apr 1.

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