IU Indianapolis ScholarWorks :: Browsing by Subject "colorectal cancer screening"

Browsing by Subject "colorectal cancer screening"

Now showing 1 - 10 of 23

African American Patients’ Intent to Screen for Colorectal Cancer: Do Cultural Factors, Health Literacy, Knowledge, Age and Gender Matter?
(2016-02) Brittain, Kelly; Christy, Shannon M.; Rawl, Susan M.; Department of Psychology, School of Science
African Americans have higher colorectal cancer (CRC) mortality rates compared with all racial/ethnic groups. Research suggests that CRC screening interventions for African Americans target cultural variables. Secondary analysis of data from 817 African-Americans who had not been screened for CRC was conducted to examine: 1) relationships among cultural variables (provider trust, cancer fatalism, health temporal orientation [HTO]), health literacy, and CRC knowledge; 2) age and gender differences; and 3) relationships among cultural variables, health literacy, CRC knowledge, and CRC screening intention. Provider trust, fatalism, HTO, health literacy, and CRC knowledge demonstrated significant relationships among study variables. Stool blood test intention model explained 43% of the variance, with age and gender being significant predictors. Colonoscopy intention model explained 41% of the variance with gender a significant predictor. Results suggest when developing CRC interventions for African Americans, addressing cultural variables is important, but particular attention should be given to age and gender.
Can Streamlined Multicriteria Decision Analysis Be Used to Implement Shared Decision Making for Colorectal Cancer Screening?
(Sage Publications, 2013-12-03) Dolan, James G.; Boohaker, Emily; Allison, Jeroan; Imperiale, Thomas F.; Department of Medicine, IU School of Medicine
BACKGROUND: Current US colorectal cancer screening guidelines that call for shared decision making regarding the choice among several recommended screening options are difficult to implement. Multicriteria decision analysis (MCDA) is an established method well suited for supporting shared decision making. Our study goal was to determine whether a streamlined form of MCDA using rank-order-based judgments can accurately assess patients' colorectal cancer screening priorities. METHODS: We converted priorities for 4 decision criteria and 3 subcriteria regarding colorectal cancer screening obtained from 484 average-risk patients using the analytic hierarchy process (AHP) in a prior study into rank-order-based priorities using rank order centroids. We compared the 2 sets of priorities using Spearman rank correlation and nonparametric Bland-Altman limits of agreement analysis. We assessed the differential impact of using the rank-order-based versus the AHP-based priorities on the results of a full MCDA comparing 3 currently recommended colorectal cancer screening strategies. Generalizability of the results was assessed using Monte Carlo simulation. RESULTS: Correlations between the 2 sets of priorities for the 7 criteria ranged from 0.55 to 0.92. The proportions of differences between rank-order-based and AHP-based priorities that were more than ±0.15 ranged from 1% to 16%. Differences in the full MCDA results were minimal, and the relative rankings of the 3 screening options were identical more than 88% of the time. The Monte Carlo simulation results were similar. CONCLUSIONS: Rank-order-based MCDA could be a simple, practical way to guide individual decisions and assess population decision priorities regarding colorectal cancer screening strategies. Additional research is warranted to further explore the use of these methods for promoting shared decision making.
Colonoscopy: the current king of the hill in the United States
(Springer, 2015-03) Rex, Douglas K.; Department of Medicine, IU School of Medicine
Colonoscopy is the dominant colorectal cancer screening strategy in the USA. There are no randomized controlled trials completed of screening colonoscopy, but multiple lines of evidence establish that colonoscopy reduces colorectal cancer incidence in both the proximal and distal colon. Colonoscopy is highly operator dependent, but systematic efforts to measure and improve quality are impacting performance. Colonoscopy holds a substantial advantage over other strategies for detection of serrated lesions, and a recent case–control study suggests that once-only colonoscopy or colonoscopy at 20-year intervals, by a high-level detector, could ensure lifetime protection from colorectal cancer for many patients.
Derivation and validation of a predictive model for advanced colorectal neoplasia in asymptomatic adults
(BMJ, 2021) Imperiale, Thomas F.; Monahan, Patrick O.; Stump, Timothy E.; Ransohoff, David F.; Medicine, School of Medicine
Objective Knowing risk for advanced colorectal neoplasia (AN) could help patients and providers choose among screening tests, improving screening efficiency and uptake. We created a risk prediction model for AN to help decide which test might be preferred, a use not considered for existing models. Design Average-risk 50-to-80-year olds undergoing first-time screening colonoscopy were recruited from endoscopy units in Indiana. We measured sociodemographic and physical features, medical and family history and lifestyle factors and linked these to the most advanced finding. We derived a risk equation on two-thirds of the sample and assigned points to each variable to create a risk score. Scores with comparable risks were collapsed into risk categories. The model and score were tested on the remaining sample. Results Among 3025 subjects in the derivation set (mean age 57.3 (6.5) years; 52% women), AN prevalence was 9.4%. The 13-variable model (c-statistic=0.77) produced three risk groups with AN risks of 1.5% (95% CI 0.72% to 2.74%), 7.06% (CI 5.89% to 8.38%) and 27.26% (CI 23.47% to 31.30%) in low-risk, intermediate-risk and high-risk groups (p value <0.001), containing 23%, 59% and 18% of subjects, respectively. In the validation set of 1475 subjects (AN prevalence of 8.4%), model performance was comparable (c-statistic=0.78), with AN risks of 2.73% (CI 1.25% to 5.11%), 5.57% (CI 4.12% to 7.34%) and 25.79% (CI 20.51% to 31.66%) in low-risk, intermediate-risk and high-risk subgroups, respectively (p<0.001), containing proportions of 23%, 59% and 18%. Conclusion Among average-risk persons, this model estimates AN risk with high discrimination, identifying a lower risk subgroup that may be screened non-invasively and a higher risk subgroup for which colonoscopy may be preferred. The model could help guide patient–provider discussions of screening options, may increase screening adherence and conserve colonoscopy resources.
Diagnostic Yield and Miss Rate of EndoRings in an Organized Colorectal Cancer Screening Program: the SMART (Study Methodology for ADR-Related Technology) Trial
(Elsevier, 2018) Hassan, Cesare; Senore, Carlo; Manes, Gianpiero; Fuccio, Lorenzo; Iacopini, Federico; Ricciardiello, Luigi; Anderloni, Andrea; Frazzoni, Leonardo; Ballanti, Riccardo; de Nucci, Germana; Colussi, Dora; Radaelli, Davide; Lorenzetti, Roberto; Devani, Massimo; Arena, Ilaria; Grossi, Cristina; Andrei, Fabio; Balestrazzi, Eleonora; Sharma, Prateek; Rex, Douglas K.; Repici, Alessandro; Medicine, School of Medicine
Background and aims The add-on EndoRings has been claimed to improve adenoma detection at colonoscopy, but available data are inconsistent. When testing a new technology, parallel and crossover methodologies measure different outcomes, leaving uncertainty on their correspondence. Aims of this study were to compare the diagnostic yield and miss rate of the EndoRings for colorectal neoplasia. Methods Consecutive subjects undergoing colonoscopy after a positive fecal immunochemical test (FIT) within organized screening program in 7 Italian centers, were randomized between a parallel (EndoRings or Standard) or a crossover (EndoRings/Standard or Standard/EndoRings) methodology. Outcomes measures were the detection rates of (advanced) adenomas (A-)ADR in the parallel arms and miss rate of adenomas in the crossover arms. Results Of 958 eligible subjects, 927 (317 EndoRings; 317 Standard; 142 EndoRings/Standard; 151 Standard/Endorings) were included in the final analysis. In the parallel arms (mean ADR: 51.3%; mean AADR: 25.4%), no difference between Standard and EndoRings was found for both ADR (RR, 1.10; 95% CI, 0.95-1.28) and A-ADR (RR, 1.16; 95% CI, 0.88-1.51), as well as for the mean number of adenomas and advanced adenomas per patient (EndoRings: 1.9±1.3 and 1.0±1.2; Standard 2.1±1.5 and 1.0±1.2; p=NS for both comparisons). In the crossover arms, no difference in miss rate for adenomas between EndoRings and Standard was found at per-polyp (RR, 1.43; 95% CI, 0.97-2.10), as well as at per-patient analysis (24% vs 26%; p=0.76). Conclusions No statistically significant difference in diagnostic yield and miss rate between EndoRings and Standard colonoscopy was detected in FIT+ patients. A clinically relevant correspondence between miss and detection rates was shown, supporting a cause-effect relationship.
Impact of including quantitative information in a decision aid for colorectal cancer screening: A randomized controlled trial
(Elsevier, 2019) Schwartz, Peter H.; Imperiale, Thomas F.; Perkins, Susan M.; Schmidt, Karen K.; Althouse, Sandra; Rawl, Susan M.; Medicine, School of Medicine
Objective: Guidelines recommend that decision aids provide quantitative information about risks and benefits of available options. Impact of providing this information is unknown. Methods: Randomized trial comparing two decision aids about colorectal cancer (CRC) screening with colonoscopy or fecal immunochemical test (FIT). 688 primary care patients due for CRC screening viewed a decision aid that uses words only (Verbal arm) vs. one that provides quantitative information (Quantitative arm). Main outcomes included perceived CRC risk, intent to be screened, and test preference, measured before and after viewing decision aid, and screening uptake at six months. Analyses were performed with ANCOVA and logistic regression. Results: Compared to the Verbal arm, those in the Quantitative arm had a larger increase in intent to undergo FIT (p = 0.011) and were more likely to switch their preferred test from non-FIT to FIT (28% vs. 19%, p = .010). There were decreases in perceived risk in the Verbal Arm but not the Quantitative Arm (p = 0.004). There was no difference in screening uptake. Numeracy did not moderate any effects. Conclusions: Quantitative information had relatively minor impact and no clearly negative effects, such as reducing uptake. Practice implications: Quantitative information may be useful but not essential for patients viewing decision aids.
Improving Colorectal Cancer Screening Rates in Patients Referred to a Gastroenterology Clinic
(Wolters Kluwer, 2019-07) Bick, Benjamin L.; El-Halabi, Mustapha; Jones, Keaton R.; Kahi, Charles J.; Fayad, Nabil F.; Medicine, School of Medicine
Colorectal cancer (CRC) is the third most common cancer and the second leading cause of cancer-related death in the United States. Colonoscopy and fecal immunochemistry testing (FIT) are the primary recommended CRC screening modalities. The purpose of this study is to improve rates of CRC screening in Veterans and County hospital patients referred to gastroenterology fellow's clinics. A total of 717 patients between ages of 49 and 75 years were seen. Previous CRC screening was not performed in 109 patients (15.2%) because of not being offered (73.4%) or declining (26.6%) screening. Patients who received previous CRC screening compared with no previous screening were older (mean age 62.3 years vs. 60.3 years, p < .003), white (88.6% vs. 78.3%, p < .027), and more likely to be Veterans patients (90.8% vs. 77.5%, p < .001). After systematically discussing options for screening with 78 of the 109 unscreened patients, 56 of them (71.8%) underwent screening with either colonoscopy (32) or FIT (24). Patients seen by fellows in their last year of training agreed to undergo screening more often than those seen by other fellows (100% vs. 66.2%, p < .033). Systematic discussions about both colonoscopy and FIT can improve the overall rates of CRC screening.
Increasing breast, cervical, and colorectal cancer screening among rural women: Baseline characteristics of a randomized control trial
(Elsevier, 2022-12) Biederman, Erika; Baltic, Ryan; Katz, Mira L.; Rawl, Susan; Vachon, Eric; Monahan, Patrick O.; Stump, Timothy E.; Kettler, Carla; Carter, Lisa; Young, Gregory; Xu, Wendy; Paskett, Electra D.; Champion, Victoria; Biostatistics, School of Public Health
Background Rural women suffer disproportionately from breast, cervical, and colorectal cancer mortality compared to those in urban areas. Screening behaviors for these three cancers share many similar beliefs and barriers. Unfortunately, published interventions have not attempted to simultaneously bring women up to date with screening for three cancers (breast, cervical, and colorectal) even though multiple behavior change interventions are effective. The aim of this randomized controlled study was to compare the effectiveness of a mailed interactive and tailored DVD vs. DVD plus telephonic patient navigation (DVD + PN) vs. Usual Care (UC) to increase the percentage of rural women (aged 50–74) up to date for breast, cervical, and colorectal cancer screening. Methods Nine hundred eighty-three participants needing one, two, or three cancer screening tests were consented and randomized to one of three groups. Prior to randomization, women were assessed for baseline characteristics including sociodemographics, health status, and cancer screening test beliefs. Screening status was assessed by medical record review. Results At baseline, the average age of participants was 58.6 years. Nineteen percent of the sample was not up to date with screenings for all three cancers. Colorectal cancer had the highest percentage of women (69%) who were not up to date with screening followed by cervical (57%) and then breast cancer (41%). Sixty percent of women reported receiving a reminder for mammography; 30%, for cervical cancer screening; 15% for colonoscopy; and 6% for FOBT/FIT. Discussion Increasing adherence to colorectal cancer screening may be the most urgent need among all screening tests.
Interventions to Promote Colorectal Cancer Screening in Primary Care: Results of a Randomized Trial
(Office of the Vice Chancellor for Research, 2013-04-05) Rawl, Susan M.; Christy, Shannon M.; Perkins, Susan; Tong, Yan; Krier, Connie; Wang, Hsiao-Lan; Champion, Victoria L.; Myers, Laura Jones; Imperiale, Thomas; Willis, Deanna; Rhyant, Broderick; Springston, Jeffrey; Skinner, Celette Sugg
Aims: The purpose of this randomized trial was to compare rates of self-reported colorectal cancer (CRC) screening and forward movement in stage of adoption at 6 months post-intervention. African American primary care patients (n=595) who were eligible for CRC screening were randomly assigned to receive a computer-delivered tailored CRC screening intervention (n=286) or a non-tailored screening brochure (n=309) prior to their scheduled visit with their primary care provider. Hypotheses were that differences between groups would be observed in proportions of patients who: 1) completed fecal occult blood tests (FOBT) or colonoscopy; and 2) had moved forward in stages of adoption for these tests. Methods: Participants completed baseline and 6-month telephone interviews; interventions were delivered prior to primary care provider visits. Differences between groups were examined using chi-square tests, predictors of screening were determined using logistic regression models. Results: In the computer-tailored group, the FOBT completion rate was 12.6% compared to 7.8% in the brochure group (p=0.05). The colonoscopy completion rate was 17.5% in the computer group vs. 15.2% in the brochure group (p=0.45). Forward stage movement for FOBT was observed in 28.4% of the computer groups vs. 20.8% in the brochure group (p=0.03). Forward stage movement for colonoscopy was 38.5% in the computer group and 36.8% (p=0.68) in each group, respectively. Conclusions: The computer-tailored intervention was more effective than the brochure at increasing FOBT completion and movement toward action. More research is needed to explain why the tailored intervention was not more effective at increasing colonoscopy completion and to identify moderators of intervention efficacy.
Interventions to Promote Colorectal Cancer Screening: An Integrative Review
(2012-07) Rawl, Susan M.; Menon, Usha; Burness, Allison; Breslau, Erica S.
Behavior change interventions to promote colorectal cancer (CRC) screening have targeted people in community and primary care settings, health care providers, and health systems. Randomized controlled trials provide the strongest evidence of intervention efficacy. The purpose of this integrative review was to evaluate trials of CRC screening interventions published between 1997 and 2007 and to identify knowledge gaps and future directions for research. Thirty-three randomized trials that met inclusion criteria were evaluated using a modified version of the TREND criteria. Significant intervention effects were reported in 6 of 10 trials focused on increasing fecal occult blood testing, 4 of 7 trials focused on sigmoidoscopy or colonoscopy completion, and 9 of 16 trials focused on completion of any screening test. Several effective interventions to promote CRC screening were identified. Future trials need to use theory to guide interventions, examine moderators and mediators, consistently report results, and use comparable outcome measures.

Browsing by Subject "colorectal cancer screening"

Results Per Page

Sort Options