Abstract
Abstract Background: Absence of a physician's recommendation is among the most commonly reported barriers to undergoing colorectal cancer (CRC) screening. It is unknown whether a physician's specific recommendation of a particular screening modality, rather than a patient's choice from a menu of screening options, improves CRC screening uptake. Aim: To assess whether healthcare providers’ discussion of CRC screening options and recommending a specific screening modality improve uptake of screening. Methods: We used the 2007 Health Information National Trends Survey (HINTS) to evaluate how respondents who were 50 years and older (n = 4,342) were informed of CRC screening. We used logistic regression analyses to examine the association of recommendations and being current with CRC screening (Fecal occult blood testing (FOBT) within 1 year, sigmoidoscopy within 5 years, or colonoscopy within 10 years). Results: The mean age of responders was 64.9 years, 60.3% female, 81.5% white, 8.6% black, and 92.7% had health insurance. CRC screening discussions occurred with 3,320 (77.5%) respondents; 94.7% of which occurred with a doctor as opposed to a nurse or other health care professional. Colonoscopy was the most recommended test. Overall, 2,824 (65.0%) respondents were up to date with CRC screening regardless of the screening modality. After adjusting for age, sex, race, highest education, income, marital status and health insurance, having a discussion about screening and receiving a specific test recommendation were associated with being up to date with CRC screening (Table). Conclusion: Uptake of CRC screening is better when providers discuss CRC screening and make specific CRC screening test recommendations. Table: Association of the patterns of CRC screening recommendations with being up to date with CRC screening Citation Format: {Authors}. {Abstract title} [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the 103rd Annual Meeting of the American Association for Cancer Research; 2012 Mar 31-Apr 4; Chicago, IL. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2012;72(8 Suppl):Abstract nr 3565. doi:1538-7445.AM2012-3565
Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
