The author’s declare that they have no competing interests.
TB, JZ, and TJ made substantial contributions to the conception and design of the study and acquisition of the data. They also, along with SJ and KL, made substantial contributions to the analysis and interpretation of the data. All authors contributed to the drafting of the manuscript, reviewed it, and made important suggested revisions. All authors also approved the final, submitted version of the manuscript. The manuscript has not been published (in full or in part) either in print or on-line and is not under consideration for publication elsewhere.
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.
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.
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).
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.
Baier M, Calonge N, Cutter G, McClatchey M, Schoentgen S, Hines S, Marcus A, Ahnen D: Validity of self-reported colorectal cancer screening behavior. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev. 2000, 9 (2): 229-232. PubMed
Madlensky L, McLaughlin J, Goel V: A comparison of self-reported colorectal cancer screening with medical records. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev. 2003, 12 (7): 656-659. PubMed
Vernon SW, Meissner H, Klabunde C, Rimer BK, Ahnen DJ, Bastani R, Mandelson MT, Nadel MR, Sheinfeld-Gorin S, Zapka J: Measures for ascertaining use of colorectal cancer screening in behavioral, health services, and epidemiologic research. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev. 2004, 13 (6): 898-905. PubMed
Dillman DA: Mail and Internet Surveys: The Tailored Design Method 2edn. 2007, John WIley & Sons: Hoboken, NJ
American Association for Public Opinion Research (AAPOR): Standard Definitions: Final Dispositions of Case Codes and Outcome Rates for Surveys. 7th. 2011, AAPOR
Jones RM, Mongin SJ, Lazovich D, Church TR, Yeazel MW: Validity of four self-reported colorectal cancer screening modalities in a general population: differences over time and by intervention assignment. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev. 2008, 17 (4): 777-784. 10.1158/1055-9965.EPI-07-0441. CrossRefPubMed
Partin MR, Grill J, Noorbaloochi S, Powell AA, Burgess DJ, Vernon SW, Halek K, Griffin JM, van Ryn M, Fisher DA: Validation of self-reported colorectal cancer screening behavior from a mixed-mode survey of veterans. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev. 2008, 17 (4): 768-776. 10.1158/1055-9965.EPI-07-0759. CrossRefPubMed
Matthews BAN AB, Anderson RC: Accuracy and certainty of self-report for colorectal cancer screening among ambulatory patients. Psychol Health Med. 2005, 10 (1): 1-15. 10.1080/1354850042000267049. CrossRef
- 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
- BioMed Central
Neu im Fachgebiet AINS
Meistgelesene Bücher aus dem Fachgebiet AINS
Mail Icon II