Article

Is the Accuracy of Self-Reported Colorectal Cancer Screening Associated with Social Desirability?

University of Texas-Houston School of Public Health, Division of Health Promotion and Behavioral Sciences, 7000 Fannin Street, Suite 2560, Houston, TX 77030, USA.
Cancer Epidemiology Biomarkers & Prevention (Impact Factor: 4.56). 12/2011; 21(1):61-5. DOI: 10.1158/1055-9965.EPI-11-0552
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT Self-reported cancer screening behaviors are often overreported and may lead to biased estimates of prevalence and of subgroup differences in screening. We examined whether the tendency to give socially desirable responses was associated with concordance between self-reported colorectal cancer (CRC) screening behaviors and medical records.
Primary care patients (n = 857) age 50 to 74 years completed a mail, face-to-face, or telephone survey that assessed CRC screening and social desirability measured by a short version of the Marlowe-Crowne scale. We used medical records to verify self-reports of fecal occult blood testing (FOBT), sigmoidoscopy, colonoscopy, and barium enema.
Social desirability scores were lower for whites versus African Americans, college graduates, and patients reporting no prior screening tests; they were higher for telephone versus mail or face-to-face survey respondents. In univariable logistic regression analysis, social desirability scores were not associated with concordance for FOBT (OR = 1.03, 95% CI = 0.94-1.13), sigmoidoscopy (OR = 0.95, 95% CI = 0.86-1.04), or colonoscopy (OR = 0.99, 95% CI = 0.88-1.11); however, lower social desirability scores were associated with increased concordance for barium enema (OR = 0.87, 95% CI = 0.77-0.99). In multivariable analyses, no associations were statistically significant.
Social desirability as measured by the Marlowe-Crowne scale was not associated with accuracy of self-reported CRC tests in our sample, suggesting that other explanations for overreporting need to be explored.
By understanding sources of response bias, we can improve the accuracy of self-report measures.

0 Bookmarks
 · 
121 Views
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Although breastfeeding is almost universal in Ethiopia, only 52% newborns benefited from early initiation in 2011. Early initiation is one of the recommended interventions for saving newborn lives but its potential seems not yet realized for Ethiopian newborns and there is a need for continued efforts to increase coverage. To do so, it is also relevant to focus on consistent and accurate reporting of coverage in early initiation. WHO recommends the question "how long after birth did you first put [name] to the breast?" in order to assess coverage in early initiation. It is designed to measure the time after birth when the mother attempted to initiate breastfeeding regardless of whether breast milk had arrived or not. However, it is unclear how mothers perceive this question and what their responses of time refer to. In this study, we assessed Ethiopian mothers' perception about the question assessing early initiation.
    International Breastfeeding Journal 01/2014; 9:13. DOI:10.1186/1746-4358-9-13
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Self-reported colorectal cancer (CRC) screening behavior is often subject to over-reporting bias. We examined how the inclusion of a future intention to screen item (viz. asking about future intentions to get screened before asking about past screening) and mode of survey administration impacted the accuracy of self-reported CRC screening. The target population was men and women between 49 and 85 years of age who lived in Olmsted County, MN, for at least 10 years at the time of the study. Eligible residents were randomized into four groups representing the presence or absence the future intention to screen item in the questionnaire and administration mode (mail vs. telephone). A total of 3,638 cases were available for analysis with 914, 838, 956, and 930 in the mail/future intention, mail/no future intention, telephone/future intention, and telephone/no future intention conditions, respectively. False positives were defined as self-reporting being screened among those with no documented history of screening in medical records and false negatives as not self-reporting screening among those with history of screening. Comparing false positive and false negative reporting rates for each specific screening test among the responders at the bivariate level, regardless of mode, there were no statistically significant differences by the presence or absence of a preceding future intention question. When considering all tests combined, the percentage of false negatives within the telephone mode was slightly higher for those with the future intention question (6.7% vs 4.2%, p = 0.04). Multivariate models that considered the independent impact of the future intention question and mode, affirmed the results observed at the bivariate level. However, individuals in the telephone arm (compared to mail) were slightly (though not significantly) more likely to report a false positive (36.4% vs 31.8%, OR = 1.11, p = 0.55). It may be that in the context of a questionnaire that is clearly focused on CRC and with specific descriptions of the various CRC screening tests, certain design features such as including intention to screen items or mode of administration will have very little impact on the accuracy of self-reported CRC screening.
    BMC Medical Research Methodology 02/2014; 14(1):19. DOI:10.1186/1471-2288-14-19 · 2.17 Impact Factor
    This article is viewable in ResearchGate's enriched format
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Background Self-report may not be an accurate method of determining cervical, breast and colorectal cancer screening rates due to recall, acquiescence and social desirability biases, particularly for certain sociodemographic groups. Therefore, the aims of this study were to determine the validity of self-report of cancer screening in Ontario, Canada, both for people in the general population and for socially disadvantaged groups based on immigrant status, ethnicity, education, income, language ability, self-rated health, employment status, age category (for cervical cancer screening), and gender (for fecal occult blood testing).Methods We linked multiple data sources for this study, including the Canadian Community Health Survey and provincial-level health databases. Using administrative data as our gold standard, we calculated validity measures for self-report (i.e. sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative likelihood ratios, positive and negative predictive values), calculated report-to-record ratios, and conducted a multivariable regression analysis to determine which characteristics were independently associated with over-reporting of screening.ResultsSpecificity was less than 70% overall and for all subgroups for cervical and breast cancer screening, and sensitivity was lower than 80% overall and for all subgroups for fecal occult blood testing FOBT. Report-to-record ratios were persistently significantly greater than 1 across all cancer screening types, highest for the FOBT group: 1.246 [1.189-1.306]. Regression analyses showed no consistent patterns, but sociodemographic characteristics were associated with over-reporting for each screening type.Conclusions We have found that in Ontario, as in other jurisdictions, there is a pervasive tendency for people to over-report their cancer screening histories. Sociodemographic status also appears to influence over-reporting. Public health practitioners and policymakers need to be aware of the limitations of self-report and adjust their methods and interpretations accordingly.
    BMC Public Health 01/2015; 15(1):28. DOI:10.1186/s12889-015-1441-y · 2.32 Impact Factor

Full-text

Download
33 Downloads
Available from
Jun 3, 2014