<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><!DOCTYPE article  PUBLIC "-//NLM//DTD Journal Publishing DTD v3.0 20080202//EN" "http://dtd.nlm.nih.gov/publishing/3.0/journalpublishing3.dtd"><article xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink" dtd-version="3.0" xml:lang="en" article-type="research article"><front><journal-meta><journal-id journal-id-type="publisher-id">OJPM</journal-id><journal-title-group><journal-title>Open Journal of Preventive Medicine</journal-title></journal-title-group><issn pub-type="epub">2162-2477</issn><publisher><publisher-name>Scientific Research Publishing</publisher-name></publisher></journal-meta><article-meta><article-id pub-id-type="doi">10.4236/ojpm.2014.45037</article-id><article-id pub-id-type="publisher-id">OJPM-46126</article-id><article-categories><subj-group subj-group-type="heading"><subject>Articles</subject></subj-group><subj-group subj-group-type="Discipline-v2"><subject>MEDICINE &amp; HEALTHCARE</subject><subject>BIOMEDICAL &amp; LIFE SCIENCES</subject></subj-group></article-categories><title-group><article-title>Do Patients in a Primary Care Practice Know the Current Cancer Screening Guidelines?</article-title></title-group><contrib-group><contrib contrib-type="author" xlink:type="simple"><name name-style="western"><surname>Neil</surname><given-names>D’Souza</given-names></name><xref ref-type="aff" rid="aff1"><sup>1</sup></xref></contrib><contrib contrib-type="author" xlink:type="simple"><name name-style="western"><surname>Morgan</surname><given-names>Slater</given-names></name><xref ref-type="aff" rid="aff1"><sup>1</sup></xref></contrib><contrib contrib-type="author" xlink:type="simple"><name name-style="western"><surname>Aisha</surname><given-names>Lofters</given-names></name><xref ref-type="aff" rid="aff1"><sup>1</sup></xref><xref ref-type="corresp" rid="cor1"><sup>*</sup></xref></contrib></contrib-group><aff id="aff1"><addr-line>Department of Family and Community Medicine, St. Michael’s Hospital-University of Toronto, Toronto, 
Canada</addr-line></aff><author-notes><corresp id="cor1">* E-mail:<email>aisha.lofters@utoronto.ca(AL)</email>;</corresp></author-notes><pub-date pub-type="epub"><day>29</day><month>04</month><year>2014</year></pub-date><volume>04</volume><issue>05</issue><fpage>199</fpage><lpage>306</lpage><history><date date-type="received"><day>18</day>	<month>March</month>	<year>2014</year></date><date date-type="rev-recd"><day>3</day>	<month>May</month>	<year>2014</year>	</date><date date-type="accepted"><day>16</day>	<month>May</month>	<year>2014</year></date></history><permissions><copyright-statement>&#169; Copyright  2014 by authors and Scientific Research Publishing Inc. </copyright-statement><copyright-year>2014</copyright-year><license><license-p>This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution International License (CC BY). http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/</license-p></license></permissions><abstract><p>
	Background: In
spite of supporting evidence and widespread promotional campaigns, screening
rates for breast, cervical and colorectal cancers in Ontario are lower than
expected. These low screening rates may be partially due to lack of knowledge
on the part of patients. Given the importance of early detection to reduce
cancer mortality and morbidity, it is prudent to investigate where knowledge
deficits may exist. The purpose of this study was to assess patient knowledge
of the Ontario screening guidelines for breast, cervical and colorectal
cancers. Methods: Patients of a family health team in Toronto, Ontario were
surveyed regarding their knowledge of cancer screening guidelines. Questions
included knowledge regarding the test, screening interval and age for cancer
screening for breast, cervical and colorectal cancers as well as
sociodemographic characteristics. Responses were summarized using descriptive
statistics. Results: A total of 117 patients were surveyed. Knowledge of the
appropriate screening test was high for breast and cervical cancer (85.5% and
70.1% respectively) though much lower for colorectal cancer (17.1%). Knowledge
regarding the age that screening should occur and the screening intervals were
much lower across all cancer types. For breast cancer, 16.2% knew the age
screening should occur and 30.8% knew the screening interval. For cervical
cancer, 6.8% knew the age screening should occur and only 4.3% knew the
screening interval. For colorectal cancer, 32.5% knew the age to start
screening and 26% knew the screening interval. Conclusions: Knowledge of the
cancer screening guidelines appeared to be low across all cancer types,
particularly for the ages at when screening should occur and the appropriate
screening intervals. These results suggest that public health practitioners and
cancer prevention organizations may need to increase efforts for patient education on cancer screening. 
</p></abstract><kwd-group><kwd>Cancer Screening</kwd><kwd> Health Promotion</kwd><kwd> Illness Prevention</kwd></kwd-group></article-meta></front><body><sec id="s1"><title>1. Introduction</title><p>The Canadian Cancer Society estimates that over 187,000 people will have been diagnosed with and over 75,500 people will have died of cancer by the end of 2013 [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.46126-ref1">1</xref>] . Cancer Care Ontario (CCO), the agency respon- sible for leading provincial cancer care efforts, has developed cancer screening programs for early detection of cancers presenting significant population burden, namely breast, cervical and colorectal cancers. The intent is to decrease cancer morbidity and mortality along all phases of the cancer care pathway. In spite of these efforts, provincial data indicate that screening rates remain low. Breast cancer screening rates in 2010-2011 were only 61% [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.46126-ref2">2</xref>] and cervical cancer screening rates in 2009-2011 were only 65% [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.46126-ref3">3</xref>] . Colorectal cancer (CRC) screening rates in 2010-2011 were 53%, with only 30% of eligible Ontarians having the preferred test—the fecal occult blood test (FOBT) [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.46126-ref4">4</xref>] .</p><p>The reasons for the lower-than-desired screening rates are not entirely clear; however, evidence supports so- cioeconomic status as a contributing factor. For example, women who are immigrants, older and of lower so- cioeconomic status report lower rates of cervical cancer screening [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.46126-ref5">5</xref>] -[<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.46126-ref7">7</xref>] . People of low income, low education, recent immigrants and certain ethnic groups have been found to have lower CRC screening rates, and women with mental illness, homelessness or substance abuse utilize screening mammography less often [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.46126-ref8">8</xref>] -[<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.46126-ref11">11</xref>] . Ar- guments have also been made for the lack of knowledge regarding preventive health practices or inability to navigate the medical system [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.46126-ref12">12</xref>] [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.46126-ref13">13</xref>] . For example, the Canadian Cancer Society has reported that breast cancer screening guidelines can be confusing for women [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.46126-ref14">14</xref>] .</p><p>Therefore, it is important to gain a sense of what baseline knowledge exists, especially among populations where low socioeconomic status may be prevalent. Thus, the purpose of this study was to assess the overall knowledge of the Ontario screening guidelines for breast, cervical and colorectal cancers among a diverse group of patients of a large, urban family health team.</p></sec><sec id="s2"><title>2. Methods</title><p>We surveyed patients of a large, academic, urban family practice located in Toronto, Ontario. The patient popu- lation this practice serves is diverse, with varying socioeconomic, cultural, language, religious and ethnic back- grounds. Particular focus is also placed on inner city health issues associated with homeless, disadvantaged and vulnerable individuals. Patients were approached in the waiting room using convenience sampling. The survey was provided to any patient who appeared to be screen-eligible (based on age) for any or all of the three evi- dence-supported forms of cancer screening. The survey was comprised of: 1) nine questions regarding knowl- edge of the three evidence-supported guidelines of cancer screening in Ontario (one question each on method, frequency and ages of screening) in a multiple choice format; and 2) nine sociodemographic questions. The sur- vey was anonymous; no personal identifiers were collected. Upon completion of the survey, an information sheet was given out to all participants outlining the current screening guidelines in Ontario.</p><p>Data were summarized using descriptive statistics. Analysis of correct responses was determined by comparing the participant survey answers to current screening guidelines. We also analyzed correct responses within at risk populations as follows: 1) breast cancer—females, aged 50 - 69; 2) cervical cancer—all females surveyed; 3) colorectal cancer—all males and females, aged 50 and over. These categories were used as liberal estimates of respondents who would be eligible for each screening type.</p><p>This study received ethics approval from the Research Ethics Board (REB) at St. Michael’s Hospital.</p></sec><sec id="s3"><title>3. Results</title><p>A total of 117 patients completed surveys. The majority of respondents were women (76.1%) and 58% of res- pondents were over 50 years of age (<xref ref-type="table" rid="table1">Table 1</xref>). Most individuals had a post-secondary education (77.8%), but 74.8% of participants assessed their financial status as “struggle to get by” or “just enough”. Just over 37% were foreign-born and 35.4% were visible minorities. Most participants rated their health as “very good” (36.3%) or “good” (38.1%).</p><table-wrap id="table1"  position="float"><object-id pub-id-type="pii">Table 1</object-id><label>Table 1</label><caption><p>. Respondent demographics (n = 117)</p></caption><table><thead><tr><th align="center" valign="middle" >Demographic</th><th align="center" valign="middle" >N (%)</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Age</td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >&lt;50</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >47 (42.0)</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >50 - 54</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >11 (9.8)</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >55 - 59</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >11 (9.8)</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >60 - 64</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >14 (12.5)</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >65 - 69</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >16 (14.3)</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >70 - 74</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >6 (5.4)</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >&gt;75</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >7 (6.3)</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Gender</td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Female</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >86 (76.1)</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Male</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >27 (23.9)</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Marital status</td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Married/partnered</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >57 (50.0)</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Separated/divorced</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >14 (12.3)</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Widowed</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >12 (10.5)</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Single, never married</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >31 (27.2)</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Length of time in Canada</td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >&lt;5 years</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >2 (1.8)</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >5 - 10 years</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >8 (7.0)</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >&gt;10 years</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >33 (28.9)</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >All my life</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >71 (62.3)</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Language</td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >English</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >95 (84.1)</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >French</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >2 (1.8)</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Other</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >16 (14.1)</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Race</td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Caucasian</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >73 (64.6)</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Non-Caucasian</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >40 (35.4)</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Highest level of education completed</td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Less than high school</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >9 (8.0)</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >High school</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >16 (14.2)</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >College/university</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >88 (77.8)</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Perceived financial status</td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >More than enough</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >28 (25.2)</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Just enough</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >66 (59.5)</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Struggle to get by</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >17 (15.3)</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Self-rated health</td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Excellent</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >8 (7.1)</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Very good</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >41 (36.3)</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Good</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >43 (38.1)</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Fair</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >17 (15.0)</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Poor</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >4 (3.5)</td></tr></tbody></table></table-wrap><p>Most respondents (85.5%) knew that a mammogram was the recommended screening test for breast cancer (<xref ref-type="table" rid="table2">Table 2</xref>, <xref ref-type="fig" rid="fig1">Figure 1</xref>). However, only 16.2% of respondents knew the age at which screening should occur and 30.8% correctly knew the frequency of testing. Similar results were observed for cervical cancer, where 70.1% correctly identified the Pap test as the screening tool. However, only 6.8% of respondents knew the age at which screening should occur and an even smaller proportion (4.3%) knew the frequency of testing. For colorectal cancer; only 17.1% knew that FOBT was the screening test of choice, 32.5% correctly identified the starting age for screening and 26.5% knew the frequency of testing.</p><p>Among women assumed to be eligible for breast cancer screening (ages 50 - 69), 88.9% knew the correct screening test, 16.7% knew the correct ages, and 47.2% knew the correct screening interval (<xref ref-type="fig" rid="fig2">Figure 2</xref>). Only 5 respondents (13.9%) answered all three questions correctly and 33 (91.7%) individuals had at least one correct response Among women assumed to be eligible for cervical cancer screening (all women regardless of age), 11.6% knew the correct screening test, 10.5% knew the correct ages, and 5.8% knew the correct screening in- terval (<xref ref-type="fig" rid="fig2">Figure 2</xref>). Seventy-two individuals (83.7%) had at least one correct response, however only 1 respondent answered all three questions correctly. Finally, among respondents assumed to be eligible for colorectal cancer screening (all men and women over the age of 50), 26.5% knew the correct screening test, 33.8% knew the cor- rect ages, and 26.1% knew the correct screening interval (<xref ref-type="fig" rid="fig2">Figure 2</xref>). Forty individuals (61.5%) had at least one response correct and only 3 respondents answered all three questions correctly.</p></sec><sec id="s4"><title>4. Discussion</title><p>Overall, knowledge of cancer screening guidelines in this study was low, especially for cervical and colorectal cancers where the incorrect responses were greater in number and proportion to correct responses. In addition, knowledge of when to start screening and how often screening should occur also appeared low across all cancer types. The one exception where knowledge appeared to be high was for breast cancer, where the majority of in- dividuals correctly answered that mammograms were the recommended screening test. We also stratified res- ponses according to screening eligibility for each cancer type and despite small numbers, the findings yielded similar results: overall knowledge of cancer screening guidelines appeared to be low.</p><p>Our results are similar to other Canadian studies found in the literature, where overall cancer screening knowledge was low [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.46126-ref15">15</xref>] -[<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.46126-ref18">18</xref>] . Vahabi et al. found that breast health knowledge was limited among 180 young women in Toronto [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.46126-ref15">15</xref>] . A second Vahabi study conducted among 50 Iranian immigrant women showed that participants had limited knowledge of breast cancer and screening practices [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.46126-ref16">16</xref>] . Hislop et al. conducted a community-based survey in British Columbia and found that knowledge about cervical cancer risk factors was low among Chinese-Canadian women [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.46126-ref17">17</xref>] . However, these studies focused on specific populations with respect to age, ethnicity and practice setting, and used different means to evaluate knowledge. To our knowledge, the findings from this study represent the first to use age, test type and frequency as proxies to assess cancer screen- ing knowledge for the three evidenced-based cancer screening guidelines in Ontario.</p><p>These findings of patient knowledge deficit, including among those who are screen-eligible, are intriguing as they suggest that there is room for improvement in terms of how health care organizations, health professionals and health ministries educate the public and promote screening programs. One study notes that colorectal cancer screening was low among older Canadians due to reasons such as physician screening recommendations, sur- prising colorectal cancer information and difficulties understanding cancer information [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.46126-ref19">19</xref>] . In addition, cancer screening guidelines themselves may be confusing due to changes reflecting new evidence [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.46126-ref14">14</xref>] . This confusion may have an impact on knowledge. Further, patients may not necessarily know what the screening test actually is in comparison to other health examinations performed during a physician visit (e.g. what a pap smear is used for versus a pelvic exam). As such, the issue of patients’ deficit in cancer screening knowledge may not neces- sarily lie with the patient; overall health care knowledge deficits may exist because health care providers, upon which many patients rely for information, are not providing the needed education and information [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.46126-ref20">20</xref>] . Our re- sults suggest that improved public education is especially needed for cervical and colorectal cancers.</p><sec id="s4_1"><title>4.1. Study Limitations</title><p>While study findings suggest that knowledge of the cancer screening guidelines are low, one must keep in mind the limitations of this study. First, our survey was not validated. However, we strove to keep the survey brief and to use language that was as simple and clear as possible. Second, since convenience sampling was used, the</p><table-wrap id="table2"  position="float"><object-id pub-id-type="pii">Table 2</object-id><label>Table 2</label><caption><p>. Knowledge of current Ontario cancer screening guidelines (n = 117)</p></caption><table><thead><tr><th align="center" valign="middle" ></th><th align="center" valign="middle" >N (%)</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td align="center" valign="middle"  colspan="2"  >Breast cancer</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Screening test</td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Ultrasound</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1 (0.9)</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >MRI</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >2 (1.7)</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Mammogram</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >100 (85.5)</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Breast exam by doctor or nurse</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >10 (8.6)</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Unsure/don’t know</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >4 (3.4)</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Ages for testing</td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >20 - 74</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >31 (26.5)</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >30 - 74</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >31 (26.5)</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >40 - 74</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >31 (26.5)</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >50 - 69</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >19 (16.2)</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Unsure/don’t know</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >5 (4.3)</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Frequency of testing</td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Every 6 months</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >10 (8.6)</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Every 1 year</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >58 (49.6)</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Every 2 years</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >36 (30.8)</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Every 3 years</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >2 (1.7)</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Unsure/don’t know</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >11 (9.4)</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle"  colspan="2"  >Cervical cancer</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Screening test</td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Fecal occult blood test</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0 (0.0)</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Pap test</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >82 (70.1)</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Pelvic ultrasounds</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >10 (8.6)</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Pelvic exam</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >5 (4.3)</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Unsure/don’t know</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >20 (17.1)</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Ages for starting testing</td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >At least 18 years old and ever been sexually active</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >52 (44.4)</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >At least 21 years old and ever been sexually active</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >8 (6.8)</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >21 years old, regardless of sexual activity</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >17 (14.5)</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >At least 25 years old, regardless of sexual activity</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >17 (14.5)</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Unsure/don’t know</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >22 (18.8)</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Frequency of testing</td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Every 6 months</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >4 (3.4)</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Every 1 year</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >67 (57.3)</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Every 2 years</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >19 (16.2)</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Every 3 years</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >5 (4.3)</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Unsure/don’t know</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >22 (18.8)</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle"  colspan="2"  >Colorectal cancer</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Screening test</td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Fecal occult blood test</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >20 (17.1)</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Rectal exam</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >10 (8.6)</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Abdominal ultrasound</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >2 (1.7)</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Colonoscopy</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >64 (54.7)</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Unsure/don’t know</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >21 (18.0)</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Age to start testing</td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >40 years</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >48 (41.0)</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >45 years</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >11 (9.4)</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >50 years</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >38 (32.5)</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >55 years</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >5 (4.3)</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Unsure/don’t know</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >15 (12.8)</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Frequency of testing</td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Every 1 year</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >36 (30.8)</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Every 2 years</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >31 (26.5)</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Every 3 years</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >19 (16.2)</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Every 10 years</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >5 (4.3)</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Unsure/don’t know</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >25 (21.4)</td></tr></tbody></table></table-wrap><fig id="fig1"><label>Figure 1</label><caption><p> Proportion of correct responses</p></caption><graphic xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink" xlink:href="http://file.scirp.org/Html/htmlimages\8-1340291x\6b514da5-1098-4898-bb75-3c66aa86df11.png"/></fig><p>study population may not be entirely representative and in turn, may lead to bias in study findings. Third, pa- tients were approached based on visual estimation of age. Therefore, some eligible patients in the waiting room might have been missed based on appearance. However, considering the broad age range, the number of patients missed is likely to be low. Lastly, the sample size (N = 117) may not be large enough to draw conclusions gene- ralizable to the broader population.</p></sec><sec id="s4_2"><title>4.2. Future Directions</title><p>Possible next steps would be to further study the degree of knowledge among patients who are screen-eligible</p><fig id="fig2"><label>Figure 2</label><caption><p> Response distribution for breast, cervical and colorectal screening for par- ticipants assumed to be eligible for screening</p></caption><graphic xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink" xlink:href="http://file.scirp.org/Html/htmlimages\8-1340291x\4a531d35-2172-40ff-bce5-acc453a35fec.png"/></fig><p>and if this is directly related to screening rates. In addition, exploring factors that are associated with decreased level of knowledge among screen eligible patients (e.g. socioeconomic status) would also be an important future direction. In turn, these results could further yield how to make screening materials more appropriate for pa- tients and whether such changes would ultimately yield higher screening rates.</p></sec></sec><sec id="s5"><title>5. Conclusion</title><p>The findings from this study suggest overall knowledge, based on age, screening test type and frequency of screening, of Ontario’s screening guidelines for breast, cervical and colorectal cancers appear to be low. Further study is needed to discern underlying reasons for this low knowledge level and in turn, what strategies can be used for improvement.</p></sec></body><back><ref-list><title>References</title><ref id="scirp.46126-ref1"><label>1</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">CANADIAN CANCER SOCIETY (2014) GENERAL STATISTICS. CANADA. HTTP://WWW.CANCER.CA/EN/CANCER-INFORMATION/CANCER-101/CANADIAN-CANCER-STATISTICS-PUBLICATION/?REGION=BC</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.46126-ref2"><label>2</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">CANCER QUALITY COUNCIL OF ONTARIO (2014) BREAST CANCER SCREENING: PARTICIPATION. HTTP://WWW.CSQI.ON.CA/CMS/ONE.ASPX?PORTALID=258922&amp;PAGEID=273161#.UOVBZJF7GXB</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.46126-ref3"><label>3</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">CANCER QUALITY COUNCIL OF ONTARIO (2014) CERVICAL CANCER SCREENING: PARTICIPATION. HTTP://WWW.CSQI.ON.CA/CMS/ONE.ASPX?PORTALID=258922&amp;PAGEID=273194#.UOVCM5F7GXA</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.46126-ref4"><label>4</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">CANCER QUALITY COUNCIL OF ONTARIO (2014) COLORECTAL CANCER SCREENING: PARTICIPATION. HTTP://WWW.CSQI.ON.CA/CMS/ONE.ASPX?PORTALID=258922&amp;PAGEID=273238#.UOVCX5F7GXC</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.46126-ref5"><label>5</label><mixed-citation publication-type="journal" xlink:type="simple"><name name-style="western"><surname>MCDONALD</surname><given-names> J.T. </given-names></name>,<name name-style="western"><surname> KENNEDY</surname><given-names> S. </given-names></name>,<etal>et al</etal>. (<year>2007</year>)<article-title>CERVICAL CANCER SCREENING BY IMMIGRANT AND MINORITY WOMEN IN CANADA</article-title><source>. JOURNAL OF IMMIGRANT AND MINORITY HEALTH</source><volume> 9</volume>,<fpage> 323</fpage>-<lpage>334</lpage>.<pub-id pub-id-type="doi">HTTP://DX.DOI.ORG/10.1007/S10903-007-9046-X</pub-id></mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.46126-ref6"><label>6</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">MAXWELL, C.J., BANCEJ, C.M., SNIDER, J., ET AL. (2001) FACTORS IMPORTANT IN PROMOTING CERVICAL CANCER SCREENING AMONG CANADIAN WOMEN: FINDINGS FROM THE 1996-97 NATIONAL POPULATION HEALTH SURVEY (NPHS). CANADIAN JOURNAL OF PUBLIC HEALTH, 92, 127-133.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.46126-ref7"><label>7</label><mixed-citation publication-type="journal" xlink:type="simple"><name name-style="western"><surname>LOFTERS</surname><given-names> A.K.</given-names></name>,<name name-style="western"><surname> MOINEDDIN</surname><given-names> R.</given-names></name>,<name name-style="western"><surname> HWANG</surname><given-names> S.W. </given-names></name>,<name name-style="western"><surname> GLAZIER</surname><given-names> R.H. </given-names></name>,<etal>et al</etal>. (<year>2010</year>)<article-title>LOW RATES OF CERVICAL CANCER SCREENING AMONG URBAN IMMIGRANTS: A POPULATION-BASED STUDY IN ONTARIO, CANADA</article-title><source>. MEDICAL CARE</source><volume> 48</volume>,<fpage> 611</fpage>-<lpage>618</lpage>.<pub-id pub-id-type="doi">HTTP://DX.DOI.ORG/10.1097/MLR.0B013E3181D6886F</pub-id></mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.46126-ref8"><label>8</label><mixed-citation publication-type="journal" xlink:type="simple"><name name-style="western"><surname>CENTERS FOR DISEASE CONTROL </surname><given-names> PREVENTION </given-names></name>,<etal>et al</etal>. (2008)<article-title>CENTERS FOR DISEASE CONTROL AND PREVENTION  VITAL SIGNS: COLORECTAL CANCER SCREENING AMONG ADULTS AGED 50-75 YEARS—UNITED STATES</article-title><source>. MMWR</source><volume> 59</volume>,<fpage> 808</fpage>-<lpage>812</lpage>.<pub-id pub-id-type="doi"></pub-id></mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.46126-ref9"><label>9</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">SHAPIRO, J.A., SEEFF, L.C., THOMPSON, T.D., NADEL, M.R., KLABUNDE, C.N. AND VERNON, S.W. (2008) COLORECTAL CANCER TEST USE FROM THE 2005 NATIONAL HEALTH INTERVIEW SURVEY. CANCER EPIDEMIOLOGY, BIOMARKERS &amp; PREVENTION, 17, 1623-1630. HTTP://DX.DOI.ORG/10.1158/1055-9965.EPI-07-2838</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.46126-ref10"><label>10</label><mixed-citation publication-type="journal" xlink:type="simple"><name name-style="western"><surname>SEEFF</surname><given-names> L.C.</given-names></name>,<name name-style="western"><surname> NADEL</surname><given-names> M.R.</given-names></name>,<name name-style="western"><surname> KLABUNDE</surname><given-names> C.N.</given-names></name>,<name name-style="western"><surname> THOMPSON</surname><given-names> T.</given-names></name>,<name name-style="western"><surname> SHAPIRO</surname><given-names> J.A.</given-names></name>,<name name-style="western"><surname> VERNON</surname><given-names> S.W.</given-names></name>,<name name-style="western"><surname> ET AL. </surname><given-names>  </given-names></name>,<etal>et al</etal>. (<year>2004</year>)<article-title>PATTERNS AND PREDICTORS OF COLORECTAL CANCER TEST USE IN THE ADULT U.S. POPULATION</article-title><source>. CANCER</source><volume> 100</volume>,<fpage> 2093</fpage>-<lpage>2103</lpage>.<pub-id pub-id-type="doi">HTTP://DX.DOI.ORG/10.1002/CNCR.20276</pub-id></mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.46126-ref11"><label>11</label><mixed-citation publication-type="journal" xlink:type="simple"><name name-style="western"><surname>HEYDING</surname><given-names> R.K.</given-names></name>,<name name-style="western"><surname> CHEUNG</surname><given-names> A.M.</given-names></name>,<name name-style="western"><surname> MOCARSKI</surname><given-names> E.J.</given-names></name>,<name name-style="western"><surname> MOINEDDIN</surname><given-names> R. </given-names></name>,<name name-style="western"><surname> HWANG</surname><given-names> S.W. </given-names></name>,<etal>et al</etal>. (<year>2005</year>)<article-title>A COMMUNITY-BASED INTERVENTION TO INCREASE SCREENING MAMMOGRAPHY AMONG DISADVANTAGED WOMEN AT AN INNER-CITY DROP-IN CENTER</article-title><source>. WOMEN’S HEALTH</source><volume> 41</volume>,<fpage> 21</fpage>-<lpage>31</lpage>.<pub-id pub-id-type="doi">HTTP://DX.DOI.ORG/10.1300/J013V41N01_02</pub-id></mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.46126-ref12"><label>12</label><mixed-citation publication-type="journal" xlink:type="simple"><name name-style="western"><surname>AHMAD</surname><given-names> F.</given-names></name>,<name name-style="western"><surname> CAMERON</surname><given-names> J.I. </given-names></name>,<name name-style="western"><surname> STEWART</surname><given-names> D.E. </given-names></name>,<etal>et al</etal>. (<year>2005</year>)<article-title>A TAILORED INTERVENTION TO PROMOTE BREAST CANCER SCREENING AMOUNT SOUTH ASIAN IMMIGRANT WOMEN</article-title><source>. SOCIAL SCIENCE &amp; MEDICINE</source><volume> 60</volume>,<fpage> 575</fpage>-<lpage>586</lpage>.<pub-id pub-id-type="doi">HTTP://DX.DOI.ORG/10.1016/J.SOCSCIMED.2004.05.018</pub-id></mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.46126-ref13"><label>13</label><mixed-citation publication-type="journal" xlink:type="simple"><name name-style="western"><surname>BARDACH</surname><given-names> S.H.</given-names></name>,<name name-style="western"><surname> SCHOENBERG</surname><given-names> N.E.</given-names></name>,<name name-style="western"><surname> FLEMING</surname><given-names> S.T. </given-names></name>,<name name-style="western"><surname> HATCHER</surname><given-names> J. </given-names></name>,<etal>et al</etal>. (<year>2012</year>)<article-title>RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN COLORECTAL CANCER SCREENING ADHERENCE AND KNOWLEDGE AMONG VULNERABLE RURAL RESIDENTS OF APPALACHIAN KENTUCKY</article-title><source>. CANCER NURSING</source><volume> 35</volume>,<fpage> 288</fpage>-<lpage>294</lpage>.<pub-id pub-id-type="doi">HTTP://DX.DOI.ORG/10.1097/NCC.0B013E31822E7859</pub-id></mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.46126-ref14"><label>14</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">CANADIAN CANCER SOCIETY (2012) CUTTING THROUGH THE BREAST CANCER CONFUSION: CANADIAN CANCER SOCIETY FINDS MAJORITY OF ONTARIO WOMEN ARE STILL CONFUSED ABOUT BREAST CANCER SCREENING: IPSOS REID POLL. ONTARIO. HTTP://WWW.CANCER.CA/ONTARIO/ABOUT%20US/MEDIA%20CENTRE/OD-MEDIARELEASES2012/CUTTING%20THROUGH%20THE%20BREAST%20CANCER%20CONFUSION.ASPX?SC_LANG=EN</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.46126-ref15"><label>15</label><mixed-citation publication-type="journal" xlink:type="simple"><name name-style="western"><surname>VAHABI</surname><given-names> M. </given-names></name>,<etal>et al</etal>. (<year>2005</year>)<article-title>KNOWLEDGE OF BREAST CANCER AND SCREENING PRACTICES</article-title><source>. HEALTH EDUCATION JOURNAL</source><volume> 64</volume>,<fpage> 218</fpage>-<lpage>228</lpage>.<pub-id pub-id-type="doi">HTTP://DX.DOI.ORG/10.1177/001789690506400303</pub-id></mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.46126-ref16"><label>16</label><mixed-citation publication-type="journal" xlink:type="simple"><name name-style="western"><surname>VAHABI</surname><given-names> M. </given-names></name>,<etal>et al</etal>. (<year>2011</year>)<article-title>KNOWLEDGE OF BREAST CANCER AND SCREENING PRACTICES AMONG IRANIAN IMMIGRANT WOMEN IN TORONTO</article-title><source>. JOURNAL OF COMMUNITY HEALTH</source><volume> 36</volume>,<fpage> 265</fpage>-<lpage>277</lpage>.<pub-id pub-id-type="doi">HTTP://DX.DOI.ORG/10.1007/S10900-010-9307-9</pub-id></mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.46126-ref17"><label>17</label><mixed-citation publication-type="journal" xlink:type="simple"><name name-style="western"><surname>HISLOP</surname><given-names> T.G.</given-names></name>,<name name-style="western"><surname> CHONG</surname><given-names> T.</given-names></name>,<name name-style="western"><surname> LAI</surname><given-names> A.</given-names></name>,<name name-style="western"><surname> RALSTON</surname><given-names> J.D.</given-names></name>,<name name-style="western"><surname> SHU</surname><given-names> J. </given-names></name>,<name name-style="western"><surname> TAYLOR</surname><given-names> V.M. </given-names></name>,<etal>et al</etal>. (<year>2004</year>)<article-title>PAP SCREENING AND KNOWLEDGE OF RISK FACTORS FOR CERVICAL CANCER IN CHINESE WOMEN IN BRITISH COLUMBIA, CANADA</article-title><source>. ETHNICITY &amp; HEALTH</source><volume> 9</volume>,<fpage> 267</fpage>-<lpage>281</lpage>.<pub-id pub-id-type="doi">HTTP://DX.DOI.ORG/10.1080/1355785042000250102</pub-id></mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.46126-ref18"><label>18</label><mixed-citation publication-type="journal" xlink:type="simple"><name name-style="western"><surname>WAYNE</surname><given-names> K. </given-names></name>,<etal>et al</etal>. (2011)<article-title>COLORECTAL CANCER SCREENING RATES LAGGING</article-title><source>. CMAJ</source><volume> 83</volume>,<fpage> E647</fpage>-<lpage>E648</lpage>.<pub-id pub-id-type="doi"></pub-id></mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.46126-ref19"><label>19</label><mixed-citation publication-type="journal" xlink:type="simple"><name name-style="western"><surname>HOFFMAN-GOETX</surname><given-names> L.</given-names></name>,<name name-style="western"><surname> THOMSON</surname><given-names> M.D. </given-names></name>,<name name-style="western"><surname> DONELLE</surname><given-names> L. </given-names></name>,<etal>et al</etal>. (<year>2008</year>)<article-title>REASONS FOR DECLINING COLORECTAL CANCER SCREENING BY OLDER CANADIANS: A PILOT STUDY</article-title><source>. JOURNAL OF CANCER EDUCATION</source><volume> 23</volume>,<fpage> 32</fpage>-<lpage>36</lpage>.<pub-id pub-id-type="doi">HTTP://DX.DOI.ORG/10.1080/08858190701821188</pub-id></mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.46126-ref20"><label>20</label><mixed-citation publication-type="journal" xlink:type="simple"><name name-style="western"><surname>MEISSNER</surname><given-names> H.I.</given-names></name>,<name name-style="western"><surname> POTOSKY</surname><given-names> A.L. </given-names></name>,<name name-style="western"><surname> CONVISSOR</surname><given-names> R. </given-names></name>,<etal>et al</etal>. (<year>1992</year>)<article-title>HOW SOURCES OF HEALTH INFORMATION RELATED TO KNOWLEDGE AND USE OF CANCER SCREENING EXAM</article-title><source>. JOURNAL OF COMMUNITY HEALTH</source><volume> 17</volume>,<fpage> 153</fpage>-<lpage>165</lpage>.<pub-id pub-id-type="doi">HTTP://DX.DOI.ORG/10.1007/BF01324404</pub-id></mixed-citation></ref></ref-list></back></article>