4.7 Article

Improving participation in colorectal cancer screening: Targets for action

Journal

PREVENTIVE MEDICINE
Volume 55, Issue 5, Pages 488-492

Publisher

ACADEMIC PRESS INC ELSEVIER SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1016/j.ypmed.2012.08.004

Keywords

General practice; Screening; Colorectal cancer; Multilevel modeling; Public health policy

Funding

  1. Groupement Regional de Sante Publique d'Ile-de-France (GRSP-IDF, Paris, France)

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Objective. Our aim was to determine whether physician-related factors influenced patient participation in colorectal cancer (CRC) screening programs and to identify patient characteristics associated with lower participation in order to facilitate the development of targeted actions to improve participation. Method. A retrospective cohort study was conducted in a French department during its first CRC screening campaign from June 2007 to May 2010. Data for 157,766 patients followed by 903 general practitioners (GPs) were analyzed. Patient participation was assessed using multilevel logistic modeling. Results. The overall participation rate was 30% (95% confidence interval [95% CI], 29.8-30.2) and varied across the 903 GPs from 0% to 75.5% (median, 30; interquartile range, 24-35). Inter-GP variance explained only 5.5% of the participation rate variance. Participation was significantly lower in males (odds ratio [OR], 0.79; 95% CI, 0.78-0.91), the youngest age group (55-59 years, OR, 0.61; 95% CI, 0.58-0.63), and patients living in socioeconomically deprived areas (OR, 0.82; 95% CI, 0.77-0.87). Conclusion. Targeted actions to improve CRC screening participation should focus on patients younger than 60 years, males, and individuals living in deprived areas. Actions to enhance the influence of GPs on patient participation should be directed to the overall population of GPs. (C) 2012 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available