Colorectal cancer screening in Massachusetts: measuring compliance with current guidelines
UMass Chan Affiliations
Department of Medicine, Division of Preventive and Behavioral MedicineDepartment of Medicine
Document Type
Journal ArticlePublication Date
2001-02-10Keywords
Barium SulfateColonoscopy
Colorectal Neoplasms
Enema
*Guideline Adherence
Humans
Mass Screening
Massachusetts
Middle Aged
Occult Blood
Sigmoidoscopy
Community Health and Preventive Medicine
Health Services Research
Life Sciences
Medicine and Health Sciences
Primary Care
Metadata
Show full item recordAbstract
CONTEXT: Professional organizations have published guidelines for colorectal cancer screening. Defining which patients are currently, or should be, screened is an important clinical and public health issue. OBJECTIVE: To document the prevalence of colorectal cancer screening and profile the tests patients have had. DESIGN/POPULATION: A random-digit telephone survey of Massachusetts adults, 50 years of age and older. OUTCOME MEASURES: Percentage of persons ever and currently tested by fecal occult blood tests, flexible sigmoidoscopy, barium enema, colonoscopy, or some combination of these tests. RESULTS: Sixty-five percent of those contacted agreed to the telephone interview. Approximately 29% of the 1119 respondents had never had any currently accepted test, including 10% who reported having only a fecal occult blood test done in a provider's office and 19% who reported having no tests. At least 51% were currently tested by one or more tests for screening, diagnosis, or both. Another 10% were possibly current by colonoscopy or barium enema, both of which can be ordered for screening but are more commonly used to evaluate a problem, such as rectal bleeding, or for surveillance after identification of a polyp or other abnormality. An additional 11% had been tested at some point but were not current according to guidelines. CONCLUSIONS: Accurate assessment of rates of colorectal cancer screening is complex because of the multiple acceptable screening methods, the fact that patients may be tested for screening or diagnostic purposes, and the lack of adequate systems for tracking such testing. For accurate measurement, all methods must be assessed regardless of whether tests were ordered for screening, diagnosis, or surveillance.Source
Eff Clin Pract. 2001 Jan-Feb;4(1):10-7.