在多专业医疗团体实践中自我报告的结直肠癌筛查准确性的相关性

Arica White, Sally W Vernon, Jan M Eberth, Jasmin A Tiro, Sharon P Coan, Peter N Abotchie, Anthony Greisinger
{"title":"在多专业医疗团体实践中自我报告的结直肠癌筛查准确性的相关性","authors":"Arica White,&nbsp;Sally W Vernon,&nbsp;Jan M Eberth,&nbsp;Jasmin A Tiro,&nbsp;Sharon P Coan,&nbsp;Peter N Abotchie,&nbsp;Anthony Greisinger","doi":"10.4236/ojepi.2013.31004","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>We assessed whether accuracy of self-reported screening for colorectal cancer (CRC) varied by respondent characteristics or healthcare utilization.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>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).</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>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.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>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.</p>","PeriodicalId":19578,"journal":{"name":"Open Journal of Epidemiology","volume":"3 1","pages":"20-24"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2013-02-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3767154/pdf/nihms466488.pdf","citationCount":"10","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Correlates of self-reported colorectal cancer screening accuracy in a multi-specialty medical group practice.\",\"authors\":\"Arica White,&nbsp;Sally W Vernon,&nbsp;Jan M Eberth,&nbsp;Jasmin A Tiro,&nbsp;Sharon P Coan,&nbsp;Peter N Abotchie,&nbsp;Anthony Greisinger\",\"doi\":\"10.4236/ojepi.2013.31004\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>We assessed whether accuracy of self-reported screening for colorectal cancer (CRC) varied by respondent characteristics or healthcare utilization.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>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).</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>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.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>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.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":19578,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Open Journal of Epidemiology\",\"volume\":\"3 1\",\"pages\":\"20-24\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2013-02-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3767154/pdf/nihms466488.pdf\",\"citationCount\":\"10\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Open Journal of Epidemiology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.4236/ojepi.2013.31004\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Open Journal of Epidemiology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.4236/ojepi.2013.31004","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 10

摘要

目的:我们评估自我报告的结直肠癌(CRC)筛查的准确性是否因受访者特征或医疗保健利用而变化。方法:从2005年至2007年,从一家多专科医疗集团招募了857名年龄在51 - 74岁之间的受访者,对他们的CRC筛查(CRCS)行为进行问卷调查。将自我报告与行政和医疗记录进行比较,以评估总体CRCS(粪便隐血检查、乙状结肠镜检查和/或结肠镜检查)的一致性、敏感性、特异性和报告记录比。结果:一致性较好(≥0.8 ~ 5次门诊外就诊),较差(5次门诊外就诊,或其医疗保健提供者建议进行特定的CRCS试验)。65岁以上、外出超过5次的受访者报告CRCS过高。结论:除了少数例外,参保人群的CRCS自我报告在各个亚组中都是相当准确的。需要更多的工作来在不同的环境和人群中复制这些发现,以更好地了解亚组差异并改进CRCS的测量方法。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Correlates of self-reported colorectal cancer screening accuracy in a multi-specialty medical group practice.

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.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
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