Validation of Self-Reported Colorectal Cancer Screening Behavior from a Mixed-Mode Survey of Veterans
Open Access
- 1 April 2008
- journal article
- research article
- Published by American Association for Cancer Research (AACR) in Cancer Epidemiology, Biomarkers & Prevention
- Vol. 17 (4), 768-776
- https://doi.org/10.1158/1055-9965.epi-07-0759
Abstract
Objective: The aim of the study was to validate self-reported colorectal cancer (CRC) screening using the National Cancer Institute Colorectal Cancer Screening questionnaire. Materials and Methods: 890 patients, ages 50 to 75 years, from the Minneapolis Veterans Affairs (VA) Medical Center were surveyed by mail. Phone administration was attempted with mail nonresponders. VA and non-VA records were combined for the reference standard. Sensitivity, specificity, concordance, and report-to-records ratio (R2R) were estimated for overall and test-specific CRC adherence among respondents providing complete medical records. Secondary analyses examined variation in estimates by patient characteristics, treatment of missing and uncertain responses, and whether a strict or liberal time interval was used for assessing concordance. Results: Complete medical records were available for 345 of the 686 survey responders. For overall adherence, sensitivity was 0.98, specificity was 0.59, concordance was 0.88, and R2R was 1.14. Sensitivity was 0.82 for fecal occult blood test (FOBT), 0.75 for sigmoidoscopy, 0.97 for colonoscopy, and 0.63 for double-contrast barium enema (DCBE). Specificity was 0.89 for FOBT, 0.76 for sigmoidoscopy, 0.72 for colonoscopy, and 0.85 for DCBE. Concordance was >0.80 for all tests other than sigmoidoscopy (0.76). R2R was 1.31 for FOBT, 1.33 for sigmoidoscopy, 1.42 for colonoscopy, and 6.13 for DCBE. The R2R was lower for a combined sigmoidoscopy and colonoscopy measure. Overreporting was more pronounced for older, less-educated individuals with no family history of CRC. Sensitivity and R2R improved using a liberal interval and treating uncertain responses as nonadherent (versus missing), but differences were not statistically significant. Conclusions: Self-reported CRC screening validity is generally acceptable and robust across definitional decisions, but varies by screening test and patient characteristics. (Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 2008;17(4):768–76)Keywords
This publication has 18 references indexed in Scilit:
- What is the Concordance Between the Medical Record and Patient Self-Report as Data Sources for Ambulatory Care?Medical Care, 2006
- Testing for prostate and colorectal cancer: comparison of self-report and medical record auditPreventive Medicine, 2004
- Colorectal cancer screening and surveillance: Clinical guidelines and rationale?Update based on new evidenceGastroenterology, 2003
- Colorectal screening patterns and perceptions of risk among African-American users of a community health centerJournal of Community Health, 1996
- Agreement Between Self-Reported Early Cancer Detection Practices and Medical Audits Among Hispanic and Non-Hispanic White Health Plan Members in Northern CaliforniaPreventive Medicine, 1995
- Concordance of Self-reported Data and Medical Record Audit for Six Cancer Screening ProceduresJNCI Journal of the National Cancer Institute, 1993
- Screening Sigmoidoscopy and Colorectal Cancer MortalityJNCI Journal of the National Cancer Institute, 1992
- Adapting a clinical comorbidity index for use with ICD-9-CM administrative databasesJournal of Clinical Epidemiology, 1992
- Patients as Reliable Reporters of Medical Care ProcessMedical Care, 1992
- A new method of classifying prognostic comorbidity in longitudinal studies: Development and validationJournal of Chronic Diseases, 1987