scholarly journals Colorectal Cancer Screening for Average-Risk North Americans: An Economic Evaluation

PLoS Medicine ◽  
2010 ◽  
Vol 7 (11) ◽  
pp. e1000370 ◽  
Author(s):  
Steven J. Heitman ◽  
Robert J. Hilsden ◽  
Flora Au ◽  
Scot Dowden ◽  
Braden J. Manns
2011 ◽  
Vol 21 (2) ◽  
pp. 347-350 ◽  
Author(s):  
Pamela S. Sinicrope ◽  
Ellen L. Goode ◽  
Paul J. Limburg ◽  
Sally W. Vernon ◽  
Joseph B. Wick ◽  
...  

2021 ◽  
Vol 13 (1) ◽  
pp. 43-55
Author(s):  
Masliza Yusoff ◽  
Faridah Mohd Zin ◽  
Norwati Daud ◽  
Harmy Mohamed Yusoff ◽  
Nani Draman

Colorectal cancer screening is an important screening to detect colorectal cancer. Thus, the aim of this study is to determine the knowledge, practice and its associated factors of colorectal cancer screening among private general practitioners (PGPs) in Northeast Peninsular Malaysia. Crosssectional study was conducted involving 127 PGPs in Kelantan. The study used a validated selfadministrated questionnaire that contained three domains. The domains were sociodemographic, knowledge and practice of colorectal cancer screening. The inclusion criterion was doctors working in a private clinic for more than six months, while the exclusion criteria were non-residential doctors and doctors practicing in private specialised clinics. Only 21.3% of PGPs had good knowledge and 3.9% had good practice on colorectal cancer screening. The duration of practice as a PGP was significantly associated with good practice for colorectal cancer screening. Only 58.3% were aware of the current recommendation on colorectal cancer screening. Most PGPs would refer patients for a colonoscopy, but screening with faecal occult blood test (FOBT) in average-risk patients was low. Only 4% of PGPs followed the recommended guidelines for colorectal cancer screening. The main reasons for not offering FOBT screening were patients’ refusal, patients were not regular patients of the doctor and the referral system for colonoscopy was found to be difficult. This study noted that knowledge and practice of colorectal cancer screening among PGPs were inadequate. Overcoming barriers for screening is important to promote colorectal cancer screening.


2018 ◽  
Vol 38 (5) ◽  
pp. 601-613 ◽  
Author(s):  
M. Gabriela Sava ◽  
James G. Dolan ◽  
Jerrold H. May ◽  
Luis G. Vargas

Background. Current colorectal cancer screening guidelines by the US Preventive Services Task Force endorse multiple options for average-risk patients and recommend that screening choices should be guided by individual patient preferences. Implementing these recommendations in practice is challenging because they depend on accurate and efficient elicitation and assessment of preferences from patients who are facing a novel task. Objective. To present a methodology for analyzing the sensitivity and stability of a patient’s preferences regarding colorectal cancer screening options and to provide a starting point for a personalized discussion between the patient and the health care provider about the selection of the appropriate screening option. Methods. This research is a secondary analysis of patient preference data collected as part of a previous study. We propose new measures of preference sensitivity and stability that can be used to determine if additional information provided would result in a change to the initially most preferred colorectal cancer screening option. Results. Illustrative results of applying the methodology to the preferences of 2 patients, of different ages, are provided. The results show that different combinations of screening options are viable for each patient and that the health care provider should emphasize different information during the medical decision-making process. Conclusion. Sensitivity and stability analysis can supply health care providers with key topics to focus on when communicating with a patient and the degree of emphasis to place on each of them to accomplish specific goals. The insights provided by the analysis can be used by health care providers to approach communication with patients in a more personalized way, by taking into consideration patients’ preferences before adding their own expertise to the discussion.


2020 ◽  
Vol 13 (3) ◽  
pp. 309-316
Author(s):  
David R. Lairson ◽  
Tong Han Chung ◽  
Danmeng Huang ◽  
Timothy E. Stump ◽  
Patrick O. Monahan ◽  
...  

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document