Survey mode and asking about future intentions did not impact self-reported colorectal cancer screening accuracy

被引:3
|
作者
Beebe, Timothy J. [1 ]
Ziegenfuss, Jeanette Y. [2 ]
Jenkins, Sarah M. [3 ]
Lackore, Kandace A. [3 ]
Johnson, Timothy P. [4 ]
机构
[1] Mayo Clin, Dept Hlth Sci Res, Survey Res Ctr, Div Hlth Care Policy & Res, Rochester, MN 55902 USA
[2] Hlth Partners Inst Educ & Res Hlth Partners, Minneapolis, MN USA
[3] Mayo Clin, Dept Hlth Sci Res, Div Biomed Stat & Informat, Rochester, MN USA
[4] Univ Illinois, Survey Res Lab, Chicago, IL USA
来源
BMC MEDICAL RESEARCH METHODOLOGY | 2014年 / 14卷
关键词
Data collection; survey methodology; cancer screening; self-report accuracy; mail surveys; telephone surveys; ROCHESTER EPIDEMIOLOGY PROJECT; RECORDS-LINKAGE SYSTEM; MEDICAL-RECORDS; SOCIAL DESIRABILITY; VALIDITY; POPULATION; BEHAVIOR; TIME;
D O I
10.1186/1471-2288-14-19
中图分类号
R19 [保健组织与事业(卫生事业管理)];
学科分类号
摘要
Background: 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. Methods: 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. Results: 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). Conclusion: 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.
引用
收藏
页数:7
相关论文
共 21 条
  • [1] Survey mode and asking about future intentions did not impact self-reported colorectal cancer screening accuracy
    Timothy J Beebe
    Jeanette Y Ziegenfuss
    Sarah M Jenkins
    Kandace A Lackore
    Timothy P Johnson
    BMC Medical Research Methodology, 14
  • [2] Is the Accuracy of Self-Reported Colorectal Cancer Screening Associated with Social Desirability?
    Vernon, Sally W.
    Abotchie, Peter N.
    McQueen, Amy
    White, Arica
    Eberth, Jan M.
    Coan, Sharon P.
    CANCER EPIDEMIOLOGY BIOMARKERS & PREVENTION, 2012, 21 (01) : 61 - 65
  • [3] Validation of Self-Reported Colorectal Cancer Screening Behaviors Among Appalachian Residents
    Reiter, Paul L.
    Katz, Mira L.
    Oliveri, Jill M.
    Young, Gregory S.
    Llanos, Adana A.
    Paskett, Electra D.
    PUBLIC HEALTH NURSING, 2013, 30 (04) : 312 - 322
  • [4] Agreement between self-reported and registered colorectal cancer screening: a meta-analysis
    Dodou, D.
    de Winter, J. C. F.
    EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF CANCER CARE, 2015, 24 (03) : 286 - 298
  • [5] A population-based survey of self-reported delays in breast, cervical, colorectal and lung cancer screening
    Gunn, Christine M.
    Berrian, Kedryn
    Weiss, Julie E.
    Tosteson, Anna A. N.
    Hasson, Rian M.
    Di Florio-Alexander, Roberta
    Peacock, Janet L.
    Rees, Judy R.
    PREVENTIVE MEDICINE, 2023, 175
  • [6] Accuracy of Self-Reported Cervical and Breast Cancer Screening by Women With Intellectual Disability
    Son, Esther
    Parish, Susan L.
    Swaine, Jamie G.
    Luken, Karen
    AJIDD-AMERICAN JOURNAL ON INTELLECTUAL AND DEVELOPMENTAL DISABILITIES, 2013, 118 (04): : 327 - 336
  • [7] A SURVEY OF PHYSICIAN BELIEFS AND SELF-REPORTED PRACTICES CONCERNING SCREENING FOR EARLY DETECTION OF CANCER
    CLASEN, CM
    VERNON, SW
    MULLEN, PD
    JACKSON, GL
    SOCIAL SCIENCE & MEDICINE, 1994, 39 (06) : 841 - 849
  • [8] Evaluation of accuracy and performance of self-reported HIV and antiretroviral therapy status in the Nigeria AIDS Indicator and Impact Survey (2018)
    Jahun, Ibrahim
    Ehoche, Akipu
    Bamidele, Moyosola
    Yakubu, Aminu
    Bronson, Megan
    Dalhatu, Ibrahim
    Greby, Stacie
    Agbakwuru, Chinedu
    Baffa, Ibrahim
    Iwara, Emem
    Alagi, Matthias
    Asaolu, Olugbenga
    Mukhtar, Ahmed
    Ikpeazu, Akudo
    Nzelu, Charles
    Tapdiyel, Jelpe
    Bassey, Orji
    Abimiku, Alash'le
    Patel, Hetal
    Parekh, Bharat
    Aliyu, Sani
    Aliyu, Gambo
    Charurat, Manhattan
    Swaminathan, Mahesh
    PLOS ONE, 2022, 17 (08):
  • [9] Self-Reported Reasons for Inconsistent Participation in Colorectal Cancer Screening Using FIT in Flanders, Belgium
    Hoeck, Sarah
    Tran, Thuy Ngan
    GASTROINTESTINAL DISORDERS, 2023, 5 (01): : 1 - 14
  • [10] Self-reported participation and beliefs about bowel cancer screening in New South Wales, Australia
    Varlow, Megan
    Stacey, Ingrid
    Dunlop, Sally
    Young, Jane
    Kite, James
    Dessaix, Anita
    McAulay, Claire
    HEALTH PROMOTION JOURNAL OF AUSTRALIA, 2014, 25 (02) : 97 - 103