Perceptions of Iowa Family Physicians Regarding Colorectal Cancer Screening
From the Department of Family Medicine, Pomerantz Family Pavilion, University of Iowa, Iowa City, Iowa 52242, USA. Medical care
(Impact Factor: 3.23).
10/2008; 46(9 Suppl 1):S103-8. DOI: 10.1097/MLR.0b013e31817c6100
Fewer than half of Americans have been screened for colorectal cancer (CRC), a largely preventable disease.
All physician members (n = 1030) of the Iowa Academy of Family Physicians were mailed a 3-page investigator-developed survey about their attitudes, barriers, and practices regarding CRC screening.
The usable response rate was 29%. Forty-three percent practiced in rural settings. Ninety-five percent felt that they were well informed about American Cancer Society guidelines and 90% tried to follow the guidelines. Most doctors (88%) disagreed with the statement that there was "no time to adequately discuss screening," but they would like more time to discuss screening. Only 40% felt their medical records were organized to easily determine screening status, 40% encouraged office staff to participate in screening, and 16% had a written policy regarding CRC screening. Physicians estimated that they recommend screening to 78% of their patients and that 54% of their patients were actually up-to-date. Discussion of CRC screening was strongly dependent on visit type, with physicians estimating that CRC screening is discussed at 11% of acute visits, 42% of chronic visits, and 87% of health maintenance visits. Several office system factors were associated with a recommendation for screening in a multivariable linear regression model (R = 0.33).
Although nearly all physicians felt that they were well informed about American Cancer Society guidelines and tried to follow guidelines for CRC screening, few had office systems to facilitate screening. Physicians would like more time to discuss screening. Office systems likely have the most potential to improve CRC screening among patients attending primary care practices.
Available from: Chyke Doubeni
[Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: Colorectal cancer (CRC) screening remains underutilized. The objective of this study was to examine the impact of primary care and economic barriers to health care on CRC testing relative to the 2001 Medicare expansion of screening coverage.
Medicare Current Beneficiary Survey data were use to study community-dwelling enrollees aged 65 to 80 years, free of renal disease and CRC, and who participated in the survey in 2000 (n = 8,330), 2003 (n = 7,889), or 2005 (n = 7,614). Three outcomes were examined: colonoscopy/sigmoidoscopy within 5 years (recent endoscopy), endoscopy more than 5 years previously, and fecal occult blood test (FOBT) within 2 years.
Endoscopy use increased and FOBT use decreased during the 6-year period, with no significant independent differences between those receiving care from primary care physicians and those receiving care from other physicians. Beneficiaries without a usual place of health care were the least likely to undergo CRC testing, and that gap widened with time: adjusted odds ratio (AOR) = 0.27 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.19-0.39) for FOBT, and AOR = 0.35 (95% CI, 0.27-0.46) for endoscopy in 2000 compared with AOR = 0.18 (95% CI, 0.11-0.30) for FOBT and AOR = 0.22 (95% CI, 0.17-0.30) for endoscopy in 2005. Disparities in use of recent endoscopy by type of health insurance coverage in both 2000 and 2005 were greater for enrollees with a high school education or higher than they were for less-educated enrollees. There were no statistically significant differences by delayed care due to cost after adjustment for health insurance.
Despite expanding coverage for screening, complex CRC screening disparities persisted based on differences in the usual place and cost of health care, type of health insurance coverage, and level of education.
The Annals of Family Medicine 07/2010; 8(4):299-307. DOI:10.1370/afm.1112 · 5.43 Impact Factor
Medical care 10/2008; 46(9 Suppl 1):S97-102. DOI:10.1097/MLR.0b013e31817eb346 · 3.23 Impact Factor
Medical care 10/2008; 46(9 Suppl 1):S1-4. DOI:10.1097/MLR.0b013e3181805e2a · 3.23 Impact Factor
Data provided are for informational purposes only. Although carefully collected, accuracy cannot be guaranteed. The impact factor represents a rough estimation of the journal's impact factor and does not reflect the actual current impact factor. Publisher conditions are provided by RoMEO. Differing provisions from the publisher's actual policy or licence agreement may be applicable.