Validation of self-reported colorectal cancer (CRC) screening in a study of ethnically diverse first-degree relatives of CRC cases

Roshan Bastani, Beth A. Glenn, Annette E. Maxwell, Patricia A. Ganz, Cynthia M. Mojica, L. Cindy Chang

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

22 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Background: Evidence about the accuracy of self-reports of colorectal cancer (CRC) screening is lacking. We conducted a validation protocol in a randomized trial to increase CRC screening among high-risk individuals. Methods: First-degree relatives (n = 1,280) of CRC cases who were due for CRC screening were included in the parent trial. All subjects who completed the follow-up interview (n = 948) were asked to participate in validation activities. Self-reports of receipt of CRC screening during the 12-month study period were verified via physicians. Results: Although 60% (n = 567) verbally agreed, only 171 subjects (18% of original sample) returned the signed validation form with the physician name and contact information and a medical information release statement. The signed forms were mailed to physicians with a $10 incentive and the request to list the dates of recent CRC screening tests. One hundred twenty-three physicians (72% of physicians contacted, 13% of original sample) returned completed validation forms. Rates of agreement were low across all three screening types with physicians verifying self-reported screening for 29% of fecal occult blood testing, 56% of sigmoidoscopy, 55% of colonoscopy, and 57% of any screening test. Conclusion: Validation of self-report using the type of protocol we used for subjects receiving medical care in many community settings may be unfeasible and cost inefficient. Given the overall low participation rate in validation activities and considerable challenges in collecting high quality data, conclusions about the accuracy of self-reported CRC screening are difficult to make based on the results of this study.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)791-798
Number of pages8
JournalCancer Epidemiology Biomarkers and Prevention
Volume17
Issue number4
DOIs
StatePublished - Apr 2008
Externally publishedYes

Fingerprint

Early Detection of Cancer
Colorectal Neoplasms
Physicians
Self Report
Sigmoidoscopy
Occult Blood
Colonoscopy
Names
Motivation
Interviews
Costs and Cost Analysis

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Epidemiology
  • Oncology

Cite this

Validation of self-reported colorectal cancer (CRC) screening in a study of ethnically diverse first-degree relatives of CRC cases. / Bastani, Roshan; Glenn, Beth A.; Maxwell, Annette E.; Ganz, Patricia A.; Mojica, Cynthia M.; Chang, L. Cindy.

In: Cancer Epidemiology Biomarkers and Prevention, Vol. 17, No. 4, 04.2008, p. 791-798.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Bastani, Roshan ; Glenn, Beth A. ; Maxwell, Annette E. ; Ganz, Patricia A. ; Mojica, Cynthia M. ; Chang, L. Cindy. / Validation of self-reported colorectal cancer (CRC) screening in a study of ethnically diverse first-degree relatives of CRC cases. In: Cancer Epidemiology Biomarkers and Prevention. 2008 ; Vol. 17, No. 4. pp. 791-798.
@article{7e00e983fccc4db7a13cd9374252b6c1,
title = "Validation of self-reported colorectal cancer (CRC) screening in a study of ethnically diverse first-degree relatives of CRC cases",
abstract = "Background: Evidence about the accuracy of self-reports of colorectal cancer (CRC) screening is lacking. We conducted a validation protocol in a randomized trial to increase CRC screening among high-risk individuals. Methods: First-degree relatives (n = 1,280) of CRC cases who were due for CRC screening were included in the parent trial. All subjects who completed the follow-up interview (n = 948) were asked to participate in validation activities. Self-reports of receipt of CRC screening during the 12-month study period were verified via physicians. Results: Although 60{\%} (n = 567) verbally agreed, only 171 subjects (18{\%} of original sample) returned the signed validation form with the physician name and contact information and a medical information release statement. The signed forms were mailed to physicians with a $10 incentive and the request to list the dates of recent CRC screening tests. One hundred twenty-three physicians (72{\%} of physicians contacted, 13{\%} of original sample) returned completed validation forms. Rates of agreement were low across all three screening types with physicians verifying self-reported screening for 29{\%} of fecal occult blood testing, 56{\%} of sigmoidoscopy, 55{\%} of colonoscopy, and 57{\%} of any screening test. Conclusion: Validation of self-report using the type of protocol we used for subjects receiving medical care in many community settings may be unfeasible and cost inefficient. Given the overall low participation rate in validation activities and considerable challenges in collecting high quality data, conclusions about the accuracy of self-reported CRC screening are difficult to make based on the results of this study.",
author = "Roshan Bastani and Glenn, {Beth A.} and Maxwell, {Annette E.} and Ganz, {Patricia A.} and Mojica, {Cynthia M.} and Chang, {L. Cindy}",
year = "2008",
month = "4",
doi = "10.1158/1055-9965.EPI-07-2625",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "17",
pages = "791--798",
journal = "Cancer Epidemiology Biomarkers and Prevention",
issn = "1055-9965",
publisher = "American Association for Cancer Research Inc.",
number = "4",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Validation of self-reported colorectal cancer (CRC) screening in a study of ethnically diverse first-degree relatives of CRC cases

AU - Bastani, Roshan

AU - Glenn, Beth A.

AU - Maxwell, Annette E.

AU - Ganz, Patricia A.

AU - Mojica, Cynthia M.

AU - Chang, L. Cindy

PY - 2008/4

Y1 - 2008/4

N2 - Background: Evidence about the accuracy of self-reports of colorectal cancer (CRC) screening is lacking. We conducted a validation protocol in a randomized trial to increase CRC screening among high-risk individuals. Methods: First-degree relatives (n = 1,280) of CRC cases who were due for CRC screening were included in the parent trial. All subjects who completed the follow-up interview (n = 948) were asked to participate in validation activities. Self-reports of receipt of CRC screening during the 12-month study period were verified via physicians. Results: Although 60% (n = 567) verbally agreed, only 171 subjects (18% of original sample) returned the signed validation form with the physician name and contact information and a medical information release statement. The signed forms were mailed to physicians with a $10 incentive and the request to list the dates of recent CRC screening tests. One hundred twenty-three physicians (72% of physicians contacted, 13% of original sample) returned completed validation forms. Rates of agreement were low across all three screening types with physicians verifying self-reported screening for 29% of fecal occult blood testing, 56% of sigmoidoscopy, 55% of colonoscopy, and 57% of any screening test. Conclusion: Validation of self-report using the type of protocol we used for subjects receiving medical care in many community settings may be unfeasible and cost inefficient. Given the overall low participation rate in validation activities and considerable challenges in collecting high quality data, conclusions about the accuracy of self-reported CRC screening are difficult to make based on the results of this study.

AB - Background: Evidence about the accuracy of self-reports of colorectal cancer (CRC) screening is lacking. We conducted a validation protocol in a randomized trial to increase CRC screening among high-risk individuals. Methods: First-degree relatives (n = 1,280) of CRC cases who were due for CRC screening were included in the parent trial. All subjects who completed the follow-up interview (n = 948) were asked to participate in validation activities. Self-reports of receipt of CRC screening during the 12-month study period were verified via physicians. Results: Although 60% (n = 567) verbally agreed, only 171 subjects (18% of original sample) returned the signed validation form with the physician name and contact information and a medical information release statement. The signed forms were mailed to physicians with a $10 incentive and the request to list the dates of recent CRC screening tests. One hundred twenty-three physicians (72% of physicians contacted, 13% of original sample) returned completed validation forms. Rates of agreement were low across all three screening types with physicians verifying self-reported screening for 29% of fecal occult blood testing, 56% of sigmoidoscopy, 55% of colonoscopy, and 57% of any screening test. Conclusion: Validation of self-report using the type of protocol we used for subjects receiving medical care in many community settings may be unfeasible and cost inefficient. Given the overall low participation rate in validation activities and considerable challenges in collecting high quality data, conclusions about the accuracy of self-reported CRC screening are difficult to make based on the results of this study.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=42149122653&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=42149122653&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1158/1055-9965.EPI-07-2625

DO - 10.1158/1055-9965.EPI-07-2625

M3 - Article

C2 - 18381469

AN - SCOPUS:42149122653

VL - 17

SP - 791

EP - 798

JO - Cancer Epidemiology Biomarkers and Prevention

JF - Cancer Epidemiology Biomarkers and Prevention

SN - 1055-9965

IS - 4

ER -