Article citationsMore>>

von Wagner, C., Baio, G., Raine, R., Snowball, J., Morris, S., Atkin, W., Obichere, A., Handley, G., Logan, R.F., Rainbow, S., et al. (2011) Inequalities in Participation in an Organized National Colorectal Cancer Screening Programme: Results from the First 2.6 Million Invitations in England. International Journal of Epidemiology, 40, 712-718.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/ije/dyr008

has been cited by the following article:

• TITLE: Predictors of Low Colorectal Cancer Screening in an Urban Academic Family Practice

  AUTHORS: Shaelyn Culleton, Morgan Slater, Aisha Lofters

  KEYWORDS: Colorectal Neoplasms, Early Detection of Cancer, Vulnerable Population, Secondary Prevention

  JOURNAL NAME: Open Journal of Preventive Medicine, Vol.4 No.6, June 11, 2014

  ABSTRACT: Purpose: The primary objective was to describe the specific socio-demographic variables that are associated with colorectal cancer (CRC) under-screening in an urban, inner city population. The secondary objective was to determine the overall proportion of eligible patients who are not appropriately screened. Methods: A retrospective chart review of patients eligible for average-risk CRC screening as per Ontario’s ColonCancerCheck program guidelines was conducted at an academic, inner city family health practice associated with St. Michael’s Hospital in Toronto, Ontario. Simple measures of association, including t-tests and chi-square tests, were used to determine the relationships between screening and demographic characteristics. Based on a type I error rate of 0.05 and an appropriate sample size, the calculated power for this study was 0.82. Results: A total of 200 patients were randomly selected; 54% were male; the majority were non-immigrants (77.5%) and were employed or retired (76.5%). Fifty-five percent of screened patients were up to date as per guidelines; 29.5% and 31% were up to date with a fecal occult blood test or a colonoscopy respectively. Individuals with psychiatric illness (p = 0.0005), with no history of prior cancer screening for other cancers (p = 0.0001), on disability or unemployed (p = 0.0010), or who were younger (p = 0.0062) were significantly less likely to undergo CRC screening. Conclusion: Colorectal cancer screening rates at this academic, urban family practice were very similar to province wide screening rates. Future studies should focus on group specific interventions to increase CRC screening uptake in low CRC screened populations.