Skip to main content
Hauptrubriken
CME Facharzt-Training Webinare Zeitschriften Bücher e.Medpedia Podcast
Service
Jobbörse Info & Hilfe
Fachgebiete
Anästhesiologie Allgemeinmedizin Arbeitsmedizin Augenheilkunde Chirurgie Dermatologie Gynäkologie und Geburtshilfe HNO Innere Medizin Kardiologie Neurologie Onkologie und Hämatologie Orthopädie und Unfallchirurgie Pädiatrie Pathologie Psychiatrie Radiologie Rechtsmedizin Urologie Zahnmedizin
Themen
Klimawandel und Gesundheit Neues aus dem Markt COVID-19 Praxis und Beruf Seltene Erkrankungen GOÄ & EBM Panorama
Sammlungen
Kasuistiken Algorithmen & Infografiken Blickdiagnosen Arthropedia FlapFinder (für Dermatochirurgen) Videos Kongressberichterstattung Medizin für Apothekerinnen und Apotheker Für Ärztinnen und Ärzte in Weiterbildung Für Medizinstudierende
Erweiterte Suche
Anmelden
nach oben
Cancer Causes & Control
Erschienen in: Cancer Causes & Control 3/2015

01.03.2015 | Original Paper

Classification tree analysis to examine influences on colorectal cancer screening

verfasst von: Gregory M. Dominick, Mia A. Papas, Michelle L. Rogers, William Rakowski

Erschienen in: Cancer Causes & Control | Ausgabe 3/2015

Einloggen, um Zugang zu erhalten

Abstract

Purpose

Identifying correlates of colorectal cancer screening (CRCS) is critical for cancer control and prevention. Classification tree analysis (CTA) is a potentially powerful analytic tool that can identify distinct population subgroups for which CRCS is influenced by any number of multivariable interactions. This study used CTA to identify correlates of CRCS for exclusive population subgroups.

Methods

Data were obtained from the 2007 Health Information National Trends Survey (HINTS) and analyzed in 2014. CTA was employed to determine the association between demographic (n = 11), psychosocial (n = 6), and numeracy (n = 3) variables and CRCS status of adults ≥50 years (n = 3,769).

Results

Overall CRCS rate was 66.9 %. Level of doctor avoidance (three categories) was the initial splitting variable, leading to a total of 21 terminal node subgroups of CRCS utilization: (1) avoid doctor, not for fear of illness/death [n = 625 (16.5 %), four subgroups]; (2) avoid doctor, fear illness/death [n = 366 (9.7 %), two subgroups]; (3) do not avoid doctor [n = 2,778 (73.7 %), 15 subgroups].

Conclusions

Doctor avoidance was an important behavioral influence on CRCS adherence. Use of CTA to identify unique characteristics within population subgroups has merit for tailoring future intervention strategies. Community-based approaches may be effective for reaching individuals who avoid routine doctor visits.
Literatur
1.
2.
3.
Walsh JME, Terdiman JP (2003) Colorectal cancer screening: scientific review. JAMA 289(10):1288–1296CrossRefPubMed
4.
Smith RA, Cokkinides V, Eyre HJ (2007) Cancer screening in the United States, 2007: a review of current guidelines, practices, and prospects. CA Cancer J Clin 57:90–104CrossRefPubMed
5.
6.
Rakowski W, Clark MA (1998) Do groups of women aged 50 to 75 match the national average mammography rate? Am J Prev Med 15(3):187–197CrossRefPubMed
7.
Vernon SW (1997) Participation in colorectal cancer screening: a review. J Natl Cancer Inst 89(19):1406–1422CrossRefPubMed
8.
Beydoun HA, Beydoun MA (2008) Predictors of colorectal cancer screening behaviors among average-risk older adults in the United States. Cancer Cause Control 19(4):339–359CrossRef
9.
Consedine NS, Magai C, Krivoshekova YS, Ryzewicz L, Neugut AI (2004) Fear, anxiety, worry, and breast cancer screening behavior: a critical review. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 13(4):501–510PubMed
10.
Davids S, Schapira M, McAuliffe T, Nattinger A (2004) Predictors of pessimistic breast cancer risk perceptions in a primary care population. J Gen Intern Med 19(4):310–315CrossRefPubMedCentralPubMed
11.
Kiviniemi M, Bennett A, Zaiter M, Marshall J (2011) Individual-level factors in colorectal cancer screening: a review of the literature on the relation of individual level health behavior constructs and screening behavior. Psycho Oncology 20:1023–1033CrossRefPubMedCentralPubMed
12.
Gimeno Garcia A, Hernandez Alvarez Buylla N, Nicolas-Perez D, Quintero E (2014) Public awareness of colorectal cancer screening: knowledge, attitudes, and interventions for increasing screening uptake. Oncology. doi:10.​1155/​2014/​425787
13.
Davis TC, Williams MV, Marin E, Parker RM, Glass J (2002) Health literacy and cancer communication. CA Cancer J Clin 52(3):134–149CrossRefPubMed
14.
Schwartzberg JG, VanGeest J, Wang CC (eds) (2005) Understanding health literacy: implications for medicine and public health. American Medical Association Press, Chicago, IL
15.
16.
17.
18.
Ciampa PJ, White RO, Perrin EM et al (2013) The association of acculturation and health literacy, numeracy and health-related skills in Spanish-speaking caregivers of young children. J Immigr Minor Health 15(3):492–498CrossRefPubMedCentralPubMed
19.
Keller C, Siegrist M (2009) Effect of risk communication formats on risk perception depending on numeracy. Med Decis Mak 29(4):483–490CrossRef
20.
Golbeck AL, Ahlers-Schmidt CR, Paschal AM, Dismuke SE (2005) A definition and operational framework for health numeracy. Am J Prev Med 29(4):375–376CrossRefPubMed
21.
Lipkus IM, Samsa G, Rimer BK (2001) General performance on a numeracy scale among highly educated samples. Med Decis Mak 21(1):37–44CrossRef
22.
Reyna VF, Brainerd CJ (2007) The importance of mathematics in health and human judgement: numeracy, risk communication, and medical decision making. Learn Individ Differ 17:147–159CrossRef
23.
24.
Schapira MM, Neuner J, Fletcher KE, Gilligan MA, Hayes E, Laud P (2011) The relationship of health numeracy to cancer screening. J Cancer Educ 26(1):103–110CrossRefPubMedCentralPubMed
25.
Schwartz LM, Woloshin S, Black WC, Welch HG (1997) The role of numeracy in understanding the benefit of screening mammography. Ann Intern Med 127(11):966–972CrossRefPubMed
26.
Kutner M, Greenberg BD, Jin Y, Paulsen C (2006) The Health literacy of America’s adults: results from the 2003 National Assessment of Adult Literacy. National Center for Education Statistics, United States Department of Education, Washington
27.
Rothman RL, Housam R, Weiss H et al (2006) Patient understanding of food labels: the role of literacy and numeracy. Am J Prev Med 31(5):391–398CrossRefPubMed
28.
Ciampa PJ, Osborn CY, Peterson NB, Rothman RL (2010) Patient numeracy, perceptions of provider communication, and colorectal cancer screening utilization. J Health Commun 15(Suppl 3):157–168CrossRefPubMedCentralPubMed
29.
Breiman L (2001) Statistical modeling: the two cultures. Stat Sci 16(3):199–231CrossRef
30.
Camp NJ, Slattery ML (2002) Classification tree analysis: a statistical tool to investigate risk factor interactions with an example for colon cancer. Cancer Causes Control 13(9):813–823CrossRefPubMed
31.
Zhang H, Bonney G (2000) Use of classification trees for association studies. Genet Epidemiol 19:323–332CrossRefPubMed
32.
Kitsantas P, Moore TW, Sly DF (2007) Using classification trees to profile adolescent smoking behaviors. Addict Behav 32(1):9–23CrossRefPubMed
33.
McKenzie DM, McFarlane AC, Creamer M, Ikin JF, Forbes AB, Kelsall HL et al (2006) Hazardous or harmful alcohol use in Royal Australian Navy veterans of the 1991 Gulf War: identification of high risk subgroups. Addict Behav 31(9):1683–1694CrossRefPubMed
34.
Welte JW, Barnes GM, Wieczorek WF, Tidwell MC (2004) Gambling participation and pathology in the United States—a sociodemographic analysis using classification trees. Addict Behav 29(5):983–989CrossRefPubMed
35.
Calvocoressi L, Stolar M, Kasl SV, Claus EB, Jones BA (2005) Applying recursive partitioning to a prospective study of factors associated with adherence to mammography screening guidelines. Am J Epidemiol 162(12):1215–1224CrossRefPubMed
36.
Gjelsvik A, Rogers ML, Clark MA, Ombao HC, Rakowski W (2014) Continuum of mammography use among US women: classification tree analysis. Am J Health Behav 38(4):492–500CrossRefPubMed
37.
38.
Nelson DE, Kreps GL, Hesse BW, Croyle RT, Willis G, Arora NK et al (2004) The Health Information National Trends Survey (HINTS): development, design, and dissemination. J Health Commun 9(5):443–460 discussion 481–444CrossRefPubMed
39.
Subramanian S, Klosterman M, Amonkar MM, Hunt TL (2004) Adherence with colorectal cancer screening guidelines: a review. Prev Med 38(5):536–550CrossRefPubMed
40.
Janz NK, Champion VL, Strecher VJ (2002) The health belief model. In: Glanz KM, Rimer BK, Lewis FM (eds) Health behavior and health education: theory, research, and practice, 3rd edn. Wiley, San Fransisco, pp 45–66
41.
Messina CR, Lane DS, Grimson R (2005) Colorectal cancer screening attitudes and practices preferences for decision making. Am J Prev Med 28(5):439–446CrossRefPubMed
42.
SPSS. AnswerTree(r) (2002) 3.1 user’s guide. SPSS, Inc, Chicago
43.
Biggs D, De Ville B, Suen E (1991) A method of choosing multiway partitions for classification and decision trees. J Appl Stat 18(1):49–62CrossRef
44.
Lemon SC, Roy J, Clark MA, Friedmann PD, Rakowski W (2003) Classification and regression tree analysis in public health: methodological review and comparison with logistic regression. Ann Behav Med 26(3):172–181CrossRefPubMed
45.
Coups EJ, Manne SL, Meropol NJ, Weinberg DS (2007) Multiple behavioral risk factors for colorectal cancer and colorectal cancer screening status. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 16(3):510–516CrossRefPubMed
46.
Pruitt SL, McQueen A, Tiro JA, Rakowski W, Diclemente CC, Vernon SW (2010) Construct validity of a mammography processes of change scale and invariance by stage of change. J Health Psychol 15(1):64–74CrossRefPubMedCentralPubMed
47.
Tiro JA, Diamond PM, Perz CA, Fernandez M, Rakowski W, DiClemente CC et al (2005) Validation of scales measuring attitudes and norms related to mammography screening in women veterans. Health Psychol 24(6):555–566CrossRefPubMed
48.
Spleen A, Lengerich E, Camacho F, Vanderpool R (2014) Health care avoidance among rural populations: results from a nationally representative survey. Rural Health 30:79–88CrossRef
49.
50.
Peroskie A, Ferrer RA, Klein WMP (2013) Association of cancer worry and perceived risk with doctor avoidance: an analysis of information avoidance in a nationally representative US sample. J Behav Med. doi:10.​1007/​s10865-013-9537-2
51.
Kannan VD, Veazie PJ (2014) Predictors of avoiding medical care and reasons for avoidance behavior. Med Care 52(4):336–345CrossRefPubMed
52.
53.
Mcqueen A, Vernon SW, Meissner HI, Rakowski W (2008) Risk perceptions and worry about cancer: does gender make a difference? J Health Commun 13(1):56–79CrossRefPubMed
54.
Moser RP, Arndt J, Han PK, Waters EA, Amsellem M, Hesse BW (2014) Perceptions of cancer as a death sentence: prevalence and consequences. J Health Psychol 19(12):1518–1524CrossRefPubMedCentralPubMed
55.
Reynolds LM, Consedine NS, Pizarro DA, Bissett IP (2013) Disgust and behavioral avoidance in colorectal cancer screening and treatment: a systematic review and research agenda. Cancer Nurs 36(2):122–130CrossRefPubMed
Metadaten
Titel
Classification tree analysis to examine influences on colorectal cancer screening
verfasst von
Gregory M. Dominick
Mia A. Papas
Michelle L. Rogers
William Rakowski
Publikationsdatum
01.03.2015
Verlag
Springer International Publishing
Erschienen in
Cancer Causes & Control / Ausgabe 3/2015
Print ISSN: 0957-5243
Elektronische ISSN: 1573-7225
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10552-015-0523-6

Weitere Artikel der Ausgabe 3/2015

Cancer Causes & Control 3/2015 Zur Ausgabe

Original Paper

Smoking-associated risks of conventional adenomas and serrated polyps in the colorectum

Review article

Role of cytochrome P450 genes in breast cancer etiology and treatment: effects on estrogen biosynthesis, metabolism, and response to endocrine therapy

Original paper

Association of TGF-β2 levels in breast milk with severity of breast biopsy diagnosis

Original Paper

The association between dietary inflammatory index and risk of colorectal cancer among postmenopausal women: results from the Women’s Health Initiative

Brief report

Total, direct, and indirect effects of paan on oral cancer

Original paper

Blood lipids and colorectal polyps: testing an etiologic hypothesis using phenotypic measurements and Mendelian randomization

Neu im Fachgebiet Onkologie

Adjuvante Immuntherapie verlängert Leben bei RCC

25.04.2024 Nierenkarzinom Nachrichten

Nun gibt es auch Resultate zum Gesamtüberleben: Eine adjuvante Pembrolizumab-Therapie konnte in einer Phase-3-Studie das Leben von Menschen mit Nierenzellkarzinom deutlich verlängern. Die Sterberate war im Vergleich zu Placebo um 38% geringer.

Alectinib verbessert krankheitsfreies Überleben bei ALK-positivem NSCLC

25.04.2024 NSCLC Nachrichten

Das Risiko für Rezidiv oder Tod von Patienten und Patientinnen mit reseziertem ALK-positivem NSCLC ist unter einer adjuvanten Therapie mit dem Tyrosinkinase-Inhibitor Alectinib signifikant geringer als unter platinbasierter Chemotherapie.

Bei Senioren mit Prostatakarzinom auf Anämie achten!

24.04.2024 DGIM 2024 Nachrichten

Patienten, die zur Behandlung ihres Prostatakarzinoms eine Androgendeprivationstherapie erhalten, entwickeln nicht selten eine Anämie. Wer ältere Patienten internistisch mitbetreut, sollte auf diese Nebenwirkung achten.

ICI-Therapie in der Schwangerschaft wird gut toleriert

23.04.2024 Medikamente in Schwangerschaft und Stillzeit Nachrichten

Müssen sich Schwangere einer Krebstherapie unterziehen, rufen Immuncheckpointinhibitoren offenbar nicht mehr unerwünschte Wirkungen hervor als andere Mittel gegen Krebs.

Update Onkologie

Bestellen Sie unseren Fach-Newsletter und bleiben Sie gut informiert.

Newsletter bestellen
Bildnachweise