Colorectal Cancer Awareness in an Academic Setting: A Survey of Screening Practices

Abstract

Purpose: The incidence of colorectal cancer (CRC) remains high, despite established screening guidelines. Much effort has focused on assessing and improving screening rates. Provider practice patterns, knowledge, and attitudes are likely important contributors to effective screening programs. Information about physician health care practices in regards to the delivery of standard screening guidelines remains sparse. We completed a cross-sectional survey of both medical and non-medical faculty at an academic institution to assess their adherence as patients to CRC screening, including their own provider recommendations for screening, preferred modalities, and barriers preventing screening in this population. Methods: A 25-item anonymous questionnaire was distributed to medical and non-medical faculty at Saint Louis University via electronic mail. Data was analyzed with SPSS 17.0 using Chi square to analyze differences between groups. Results: Of the 2,222 faculty who were surveyed, 600 (27%) responded. Approximately 40% of all participants reported themselves as medical faculty. Males and females responded equally across all age groups (50.3% and 49.7% respectively). In respondents age 50 and older (52.8%), significantly more males than females responded (X2=16.2, p<0.0001). Eighty-five percent of those surveyed age 50 and over had been recommended screening at least once by their own physician, and 83.1% in this age group had undergone some form of screening. Screening rates between males and females of average risk were similar (83.6% and 79% respectively, X2=0.86, p=0.35). Colonoscopy was the most frequently reported modality of screening (72%), and barium enema was the least utilized test (0.3%). No respondents over age 50 reported screening by CT colonography. Of respondents with a first degree relative with colon cancer, 97% of those age 50 and over had been screened at least once. Twenty-five percent of respondents over age of 50 reported themselves as medical school faculty. The screening adherence rate within this group was 76.2%, which did not differ from the same age non-medical faculty group (X2=1.5 p=0.221). Likewise, medical faculty involved in direct patient care reported similar screening rates compared to those without patient contact (75% vs. 83.2% respectively, X2=1.94, p=0.163). Conclusion: Adherence rate to CRC screening guidelines is higher among academic faculty within this institution than that reported in the general population. Medical school faculty, regardless of involvement in patient care, reported similar screening rates compared to non-medical faculty. Increased access to healthcare providers may play a role.