Suppr超能文献

“找到合适的匹配度”:农村患者对粪便免疫化学检测(FIT)特征的偏好

"Finding the Right FIT": Rural Patient Preferences for Fecal Immunochemical Test (FIT) Characteristics.

作者信息

Pham Robyn, Cross Suzanne, Fernandez Bianca, Corson Kathryn, Dillon Kristen, Yackley Coco, Davis Melinda M

机构信息

From Oregon Rural Practice-based Research Network, Portland, OR (RP, MMD); Community Health Advocacy and Research Alliance, Hood River (RP, SC, BF, KC, KD, CY, MMD); Columbia Gorge Health Council, The Dalles (SC, CY); The Next Door, Inc., Hood River (BF); PacificSource Columbia Gorge CCO, Hood River (KD); Department of Family Medicine & School of Public Health, Oregon Health & Science University, Portland (MMD).

出版信息

J Am Board Fam Med. 2017 Sep-Oct;30(5):632-644. doi: 10.3122/jabfm.2017.05.170151.

Abstract

PURPOSE

Colorectal cancer (CRC) is the third leading cause of cancer death in the United States, yet 1 in 3 Americans have never been screened for CRC. Annual screening using fecal immunochemical tests (FITs) is often a preferred modality in populations experiencing CRC screening disparities. Although multiple studies evaluate the clinical effectiveness of FITs, few studies assess patient preferences toward kit characteristics. We conducted this community-led study to assess patient preferences for FIT characteristics and to use study findings in concert with clinical effectiveness data to inform regional FIT selection.

METHODS

We collaborated with local health system leaders to identify FITs and recruit age eligible (50 to 75 years), English or Spanish speaking community members. Participants completed up to 6 FITs and associated questionnaires and were invited to participate in a follow-up focus group. We used a sequential explanatory mixed-methods design to assess participant preferences and rank FIT kits. First, we used quantitative data from user testing to measure acceptability, ease of completion, and specimen adequacy through a descriptive analysis of 1) fixed response questionnaire items on participant attitudes toward and experiences with FIT kits, and 2) a clinical assessment of adherence to directions regarding collection, packaging, and return of specimens. Second, we analyzed qualitative data from focus groups to refine FIT rankings and gain deeper insight into the pros and cons associated with each tested kit.

FINDINGS

Seventy-six FITs were completed by 18 participants (Range, 3 to 6 kits per participant). Over half (56%, n = 10) of the participants were Hispanic and 50% were female (n = 9). Thirteen participants attended 1 of 3 focus groups. Participants preferred FITs that were single sample, used a probe and vial for sample collection, and had simple, large-font instructions with colorful pictures. Participants reported challenges using paper to catch samples, had difficulty labeling tests, and emphasized the importance of having care team members provide verbal instructions on test completion and follow-up support for patients with abnormal results. FIT rankings from most to least preferred were OC-Light, Hemosure iFOB Test, InSure FIT, QuickVue, OneStep+, and Hemoccult ICT.

CONCLUSIONS

FIT characteristics influenced patient's perceptions of test acceptability and feasibility. Health system leaders, payers, and clinicians should select FITs that are both clinically effective and incorporate patient preferred test characteristics. Consideration of patient preferences may facilitate FIT return, especially in populations at higher risk for experiencing CRC screening disparities.

摘要

目的

结直肠癌(CRC)是美国癌症死亡的第三大主要原因,但三分之一的美国人从未接受过CRC筛查。对于存在CRC筛查差异的人群,每年使用粪便免疫化学检测(FIT)进行筛查通常是一种首选方式。尽管多项研究评估了FIT的临床有效性,但很少有研究评估患者对试剂盒特征的偏好。我们开展了这项由社区主导的研究,以评估患者对FIT特征的偏好,并将研究结果与临床有效性数据结合起来,为地区FIT的选择提供参考。

方法

我们与当地卫生系统负责人合作,确定FIT产品,并招募年龄符合要求(50至75岁)、会说英语或西班牙语的社区成员。参与者完成了多达6种FIT产品及相关问卷,并被邀请参加后续的焦点小组。我们采用了顺序解释性混合方法设计来评估参与者的偏好并对FIT试剂盒进行排名。首先,我们使用来自用户测试的定量数据,通过对以下两方面的描述性分析来衡量可接受性、完成的难易程度和样本充足性:1)关于参与者对FIT试剂盒的态度和体验的固定应答问卷项目;2)对标本采集、包装和返还的操作说明遵循情况的临床评估。其次,我们分析焦点小组的定性数据,以完善FIT排名,并更深入地了解每种测试试剂盒的优缺点。

结果

18名参与者完成了76次FIT测试(范围为每位参与者3至6种试剂盒)。超过一半(56%,n = 10)的参与者为西班牙裔,50%为女性(n = 9)。13名参与者参加了3个焦点小组中的1个。参与者更喜欢单样本、使用探针和小瓶进行样本采集、带有简单的大字体说明和彩色图片的FIT产品。参与者报告在使用纸张收集样本时遇到困难,在标记测试时有困难,并强调护理团队成员就测试完成提供口头指导以及对结果异常的患者提供后续支持的重要性。从最受欢迎到最不受欢迎的FIT排名依次为OC-Light、Hemosure iFOB Test、InSure FIT、QuickVue、OneStep+和Hemoccult ICT。

结论

FIT特征影响了患者对测试可接受性和可行性的认知。卫生系统负责人、支付方和临床医生应选择既具有临床有效性又包含患者偏好测试特征的FIT产品。考虑患者偏好可能有助于提高FIT的返还率,尤其是在经历CRC筛查差异风险较高的人群中。

相似文献

1
"Finding the Right FIT": Rural Patient Preferences for Fecal Immunochemical Test (FIT) Characteristics.
J Am Board Fam Med. 2017 Sep-Oct;30(5):632-644. doi: 10.3122/jabfm.2017.05.170151.
3
Comparative Performance of Common Fecal Immunochemical Tests : A Cross-Sectional Study.
Ann Intern Med. 2024 Oct;177(10):1350-1360. doi: 10.7326/M24-0080. Epub 2024 Sep 3.
4
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.
5
8
Interval Colorectal Cancer Incidence Among Subjects Undergoing Multiple Rounds of Fecal Immunochemical Testing.
Gastroenterology. 2017 Aug;153(2):439-447.e2. doi: 10.1053/j.gastro.2017.05.004. Epub 2017 May 5.
10
Feasibility and efficacy of a novel audiovisual tool to increase colorectal cancer screening among rural Appalachian Kentucky adults.
Front Public Health. 2024 Jul 11;12:1415607. doi: 10.3389/fpubh.2024.1415607. eCollection 2024.

引用本文的文献

3
Effort Required and Lessons Learned From Recruiting Health Plans and Rural Primary Care Practices for a Cancer Screening Outreach Study.
J Prim Care Community Health. 2024 Jan-Dec;15:21501319241259915. doi: 10.1177/21501319241259915.
4
Improving Fecal Immunochemical Test Collection for Colorectal Cancer Screening During the COVID-19 Pandemic.
Fed Pract. 2024 May;41(Suppl 2):S29-S37. doi: 10.12788/fp.0455. Epub 2024 May 15.
10
Source matters: a survey of cost variation for fecal immunochemical tests in primary care.
BMC Health Serv Res. 2022 Feb 15;22(1):204. doi: 10.1186/s12913-022-07576-4.

本文引用的文献

2
Early Performance in Medicaid Accountable Care Organizations: A Comparison of Oregon and Colorado.
JAMA Intern Med. 2017 Apr 1;177(4):538-545. doi: 10.1001/jamainternmed.2016.9098.
3
Screening for Colorectal Cancer and Evolving Issues for Physicians and Patients: A Review.
JAMA. 2016 Nov 22;316(20):2135-2145. doi: 10.1001/jama.2016.17418.
4
Colorectal cancer prevention: Perspectives of key players from social networks in a low-income rural US region.
Int J Qual Stud Health Well-being. 2016 Feb 22;11:30396. doi: 10.3402/qhw.v11.30396. eCollection 2016.
5
Oregon's Medicaid Coordinated Care Organizations.
JAMA. 2016 Mar 1;315(9):869-70. doi: 10.1001/jama.2016.0206.
8
Cancer screening test use - United States, 2013.
MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 2015 May 8;64(17):464-8.
9
Navigating the murky waters of colorectal cancer screening and health reform.
Am J Public Health. 2014 Jun;104(6):982-6. doi: 10.2105/AJPH.2014.301877. Epub 2014 Apr 17.
10
Challenges and possible solutions to colorectal cancer screening for the underserved.
J Natl Cancer Inst. 2014 Apr;106(4):dju032. doi: 10.1093/jnci/dju032. Epub 2014 Mar 28.

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