The Association Between Health Literacy and Colorectal Cancer Screening: Findings Using a Three-Question Health Literacy Measure.

IF 1.6 Q4 ONCOLOGY
Alfonsus Adrian H Harsono, Rachel Ruiz, Meghna Katta, Hannah Ficarino Sheffer, Marshall Chandler McLeod, Smita Bhatia, Daniel I Chu, Robert H Hollis
{"title":"The Association Between Health Literacy and Colorectal Cancer Screening: Findings Using a Three-Question Health Literacy Measure.","authors":"Alfonsus Adrian H Harsono, Rachel Ruiz, Meghna Katta, Hannah Ficarino Sheffer, Marshall Chandler McLeod, Smita Bhatia, Daniel I Chu, Robert H Hollis","doi":"10.1007/s12029-025-01241-9","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>Health literacy (HL) can impact health behaviors including colorectal cancer (CRC) screening. Prior findings using extensive measures of HL suggested that low HL is associated with lower CRC screening rates. We hypothesized that low HL, when measured using a clinically applicable three-question measure, would also be associated with low CRC screening rates.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Data collected from the 2016 Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System (BRFSS) was utilized from 17 states that included a three-question HL measure. Participants ages 50-75 were included. The HL scores were categorized as adequate, marginal, or limited HL. The primary outcome was United States Preventative Services Task Force (USPSTF) recommendation-concordant CRC screening. The relationship between HL and CRC screening was examined using multivariable logistic regression.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Among 38,044 participants who met inclusion criteria, 47.2% (n = 17,950), 49.9% (n = 18,989), and 2.9% (n = 1105) had adequate, marginal, and limited HL, respectively. Lower HL levels were associated with lower adherence to USPSTF CRC screening recommendations: 73.3% for adequate, 68.0% for marginal, and 48.9% for limited HL (p < 0.01). Respondents with limited HL were 45% less likely to undergo CRC screening (OR = 0.55; 95%CI: 0.48-0.63). A significant interaction (p < 0.01) between health literacy and sex was identified. CRC screening difference among HL levels was more pronounced for male (OR = 0.48; 95% CI: 0.40-0.79) than female respondents (OR = 0.63; 95% CI: 0.52-0.76).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Limited health literacy is associated with significantly lower rates of appropriate CRC screening, particularly for males. This three-question HL measure provides a clinically applicable tool to identify people at risk for lack of CRC screening.</p>","PeriodicalId":15895,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Gastrointestinal Cancer","volume":"56 1","pages":"111"},"PeriodicalIF":1.6000,"publicationDate":"2025-05-08","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Gastrointestinal Cancer","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s12029-025-01241-9","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"ONCOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Purpose: Health literacy (HL) can impact health behaviors including colorectal cancer (CRC) screening. Prior findings using extensive measures of HL suggested that low HL is associated with lower CRC screening rates. We hypothesized that low HL, when measured using a clinically applicable three-question measure, would also be associated with low CRC screening rates.

Methods: Data collected from the 2016 Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System (BRFSS) was utilized from 17 states that included a three-question HL measure. Participants ages 50-75 were included. The HL scores were categorized as adequate, marginal, or limited HL. The primary outcome was United States Preventative Services Task Force (USPSTF) recommendation-concordant CRC screening. The relationship between HL and CRC screening was examined using multivariable logistic regression.

Results: Among 38,044 participants who met inclusion criteria, 47.2% (n = 17,950), 49.9% (n = 18,989), and 2.9% (n = 1105) had adequate, marginal, and limited HL, respectively. Lower HL levels were associated with lower adherence to USPSTF CRC screening recommendations: 73.3% for adequate, 68.0% for marginal, and 48.9% for limited HL (p < 0.01). Respondents with limited HL were 45% less likely to undergo CRC screening (OR = 0.55; 95%CI: 0.48-0.63). A significant interaction (p < 0.01) between health literacy and sex was identified. CRC screening difference among HL levels was more pronounced for male (OR = 0.48; 95% CI: 0.40-0.79) than female respondents (OR = 0.63; 95% CI: 0.52-0.76).

Conclusion: Limited health literacy is associated with significantly lower rates of appropriate CRC screening, particularly for males. This three-question HL measure provides a clinically applicable tool to identify people at risk for lack of CRC screening.

健康素养与结直肠癌筛查之间的关系:使用三问题健康素养测量的结果。
目的:健康素养(HL)可以影响健康行为,包括结直肠癌(CRC)筛查。先前广泛测量HL的研究结果表明,低HL与较低的CRC筛查率相关。我们假设,当使用临床适用的三问题测量方法测量时,低HL也与低CRC筛查率相关。方法:使用来自17个州的2016年行为风险因素监测系统(BRFSS)收集的数据,其中包括三个问题的HL测量。参与者年龄在50-75岁之间。HL评分分为充分、边际或有限HL。主要结果是美国预防服务工作组(USPSTF)推荐的一致的CRC筛查。使用多变量logistic回归检验HL和CRC筛查之间的关系。结果:在38,044名符合纳入标准的参与者中,分别有47.2% (n = 17,950)、49.9% (n = 18,989)和2.9% (n = 1105)有适当、边际和有限的HL。较低的HL水平与较低的USPSTF CRC筛查建议依从性相关:73.3%的人认为适当,68.0%的人认为边缘,48.9%的人认为有限的HL(结论:有限的健康素养与较低的适当CRC筛查率显著相关,特别是对于男性。这三个问题的HL测量提供了一种临床适用的工具,用于识别缺乏CRC筛查的高危人群。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
3.80
自引率
0.00%
发文量
121
期刊介绍: The Journal of Gastrointestinal Cancer is a multidisciplinary medium for the publication of novel research pertaining to cancers arising from the gastrointestinal tract.The journal is dedicated to the most rapid publication possible.The journal publishes papers in all relevant fields, emphasizing those studies that are helpful in understanding and treating cancers affecting the esophagus, stomach, liver, gallbladder and biliary tree, pancreas, small bowel, large bowel, rectum, and anus. In addition, the Journal of Gastrointestinal Cancer publishes basic and translational scientific information from studies providing insight into the etiology and progression of cancers affecting these organs. New insights are provided from diverse areas of research such as studies exploring pre-neoplastic states, risk factors, epidemiology, genetics, preclinical therapeutics, surgery, radiation therapy, novel medical therapeutics, clinical trials, and outcome studies.In addition to reports of original clinical and experimental studies, the journal also publishes: case reports, state-of-the-art reviews on topics of immediate interest or importance; invited articles analyzing particular areas of pancreatic research and knowledge; perspectives in which critical evaluation and conflicting opinions about current topics may be expressed; meeting highlights that summarize important points presented at recent meetings; abstracts of symposia and conferences; book reviews; hypotheses; Letters to the Editors; and other items of special interest, including:Complex Cases in GI Oncology:  This is a new initiative to provide a forum to review and discuss the history and management of complex and involved gastrointestinal oncology cases. The format will be similar to a teaching case conference where a case vignette is presented and is followed by a series of questions and discussion points. A brief reference list supporting the points made in discussion would be expected.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信