Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2010 Jan;19(1):196-200.
doi: 10.1158/1055-9965.EPI-09-0335.

Accuracy of self-reported reason for colorectal cancer testing

Affiliations

Accuracy of self-reported reason for colorectal cancer testing

Jan M Eberth et al. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev. 2010 Jan.

Abstract

Assessment of accuracy of self-reported reason for colorectal cancer testing has been limited. We examined the accuracy and correlates of self-reported reason (screening or diagnosis) for having a sigmoidoscopy or colonoscopy. Patients who had received at least one sigmoidoscopy or colonoscopy within the past 5 years were recruited from a large multispecialty clinic in Houston, TX, between 2005 and 2007. We calculated concordance, positive predictive value, negative predictive value, sensitivity, and specificity between self-reported reason and the medical record (gold standard). Logistic regression was performed to identify correlates of accurate self-report. Self-reported reason for testing was more accurate when the sigmoidoscopy or colonoscopy was done for screening, rather than diagnosis. In the multivariable analysis for sigmoidoscopy, age was positively associated with accurately reporting reason for testing, whereas having two or more colorectal cancer tests during the study period (compared with only one test) was negatively associated with accuracy. In the multivariable analysis, none of the correlates was statistically associated with colonoscopy although a similar pattern was observed for number of tests. Determining the best way to identify those who have been tested for diagnosis, rather than screening, is an important next step.

PubMed Disclaimer

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Flow diagram showing how the sample of participants was chosen

Similar articles

Cited by

References

    1. Shen J, Samson L, Washington E, Johnson P, Edwards C, Malone A. Barriers of HIPAA regulation to implementation of health services research. J Med Syst. 2006;30:65–69. - PubMed
    1. Partin MR, Grill J, Noorbaloochi S, et al. Validation of self-reported colorectal cancer screening behavior from a mixed-mode survey of veterans. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev. 2008;17:768–776. - PubMed
    1. Vernon SW, Tiro JA, Vojvodic RW, et al. Reliability and validity of a questionnaire to measure colorectal cancer screening behaviors: does mode of survey administration matter? Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev. 2008;17:758–767. - PubMed
    1. Vernon SW, Meissner H, Klabunde C, Rimer BK, Ahnen DJ, Bastani R, et al. Measures for ascertaining use of colorectal cancer screening in behavioral, health services, and epidemiologic research. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev. 2004;13(6):898–905. - PubMed
    1. Last JM. A dictionary for public health. New York: Oxford University Press; 2007. p. 336.

Publication types