4.7 Article

Rates of screening colonoscopy are not increased when women are offered a female endoscopist in a health promotion outreach program

Journal

GASTROINTESTINAL ENDOSCOPY
Volume 72, Issue 5, Pages 1014-1019

Publisher

MOSBY-ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.gie.2010.06.014

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. American Cancer Society [MRSG-06-081-CPPB]
  2. National Cancer Institute and National Institute on Aging [P20 CA103680]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Background: In surveys, almost 50% of women prefer a female endoscopist (FE) to perform their screening colonoscopies (SCOs). Objective: To assess whether offering women an FE is associated with higher rates of SCOs. Design: Prospective cohort study. Setting: University of Colorado Hospital primary care clinics. Patients: Women of ages 50 to 69 years eligible for an SCO. Interventions: SCO offers through mail and telephone outreach, with and without an explicit FE option. Main Outcome Measurements: Outreach intervention differences in SCO completion rates and percentages of women requesting FE. Results: Of 396 women, 72 (18.2%) underwent SCO without difference by type of invitation. Women who received an FE invitation were more likely to request an FE than patients who received no invitation (44.2% and 4.8%, respectively, P < .001), but women who requested an FE were not more likely to undergo an SCO than those who did not. Limitations: SCO was offered through an outreach program rather than through in-clinic referrals. The study used a nonrandomized trial comparison group. Conclusions: Women offered an FE were not more likely to undergo an SCO than those who were not. This study is unique in describing outcomes associated with actual offers of an FE at the time of scheduling. More direct evidence is needed to support the notion that the absence of FEs is an important barrier to colorectal cancer screening among women. (Gastrointest Endosc 2010;72:1014-9.)

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