Logistic regression models for ordinal response: A study of self-efficacy in colorectal cancer screening

The ordinal logistic regression models are used to analyze the dependant variable with multiple outcomes that can be ranked, but have been underutilized. In this study, we describe four logistic regression models for analyzing the ordinal response variable. ^ In this methodological study, the four regression models are proposed. The first model uses the multinomial logistic model. The second is adjacent-category logit model. The third is the proportional odds model and the fourth model is the continuation-ratio model. We illustrate and compare the fit of these models using data from the survey designed by the University of Texas, School of Public Health research project PCCaSO (Promoting Colon Cancer Screening in people 50 and Over), to study the patient’s confidence in the completion colorectal cancer screening (CRCS). ^ The purpose of this study is two fold: first, to provide a synthesized review of models for analyzing data with ordinal response, and second, to evaluate their usefulness in epidemiological research, with particular emphasis on model formulation, interpretation of model coefficients, and their implications. Four ordinal logistic models that are used in this study include (1) Multinomial logistic model, (2) Adjacent-category logistic model [9], (3) Continuation-ratio logistic model [10], (4) Proportional logistic model [11]. We recommend that the analyst performs (1) goodness-of-fit tests, (2) sensitivity analysis by fitting and comparing different models.^

Colorectal cancer screening: Racial/ethnic and gender disparities in a population-based cross-sectional analysis of the United States

Gender and racial/ethnic disparities in colorectal cancer screening (CRC) has been observed and associated with income status, education level, treatment and late diagnosis. According to the American Cancer Society, among both males and females, CRC is the third most frequently diagnosed type of cancer and accounts for 10% of cancer deaths in the United States. Differences in CRC test use have been documented and limited to access to health care, demographics and health behaviors, but few studies have examined the correlates of CRC screening test use by gender. This present study examined the prevalence of CRC screening test use and assessed whether disparities are explained by gender and racial/ethnic differences. To assess these associations, the study utilized a cross-sectional design and examined the distribution of the covariates for gender and racial/ethnic group differences using the chi square statistic. Logistic regression was used to estimate the prevalence odds ratio and to adjust for the confounding effects of the covariates. ^ Results indicated there are disparities in the use of CRC screening test use and there were statistically significant difference in the prevalence for both FOBT and endoscopy screening between gender, χ2, p≤0.003. Females had a lower prevalence of endoscopy colorectal cancer screening than males when adjusting for age and education (OR 0.88, 95% CI 0.82–0.95). However, no statistically significant difference was reported between racial/ethnic groups, χ 2 p≤0.179 after adjusting for age, education and gender. For both FOBT and endoscopy screening Non-Hispanic Blacks and Hispanics had a lower prevalence of screening compared with Non-Hispanic Whites. In the multivariable regression model, the gender disparities could largely be explained by age, income status, education level, and marital status. Overall, individuals between the age "70–79" years old, were married, with some college education and income greater than $20,000 were associated with a higher prevalence of colorectal cancer screening test use within gender and racial/ethnic groups. ^

Latino patients' desire to participate in informed decisions regarding colorectal cancer screening

Colorectal cancer (CRC) has become a public health concern due to the underutilization of the various screening methods. There is a need to understand a patient's decision making process in regards to their health and obtaining the appropriate screening. Previous research has defined patient autonomy in two dimensions: The patient's involvement in the decision making process and their desire to be informed (Ende, Kazis, Ash, & Moskowitz, 1989). Past research shows that patients have a high desire to be informed, but a low desire to be involved in the medical decision process. Deber, Kraetschmer, and Irvine (1996) developed a measure which consisted of two subscales that measures patients' involvement: Patient's desire to be involved in the problem solving (PS) and decision making (DM) process. Little research has examined the desire for involvement and decision making of Latino populations. The present study sought to investigate the psychometric properties of the Deber et al. (1996) measure. In general, Latino patients in the present sample had low desire for autonomy in health decisions or to be involved in the decision making processes of their health related issues. ^

A meta-analysis: Obesity and colorectal cancer screening

Of cancer death, colorectal cancer death ranks second in the United States. Obesity is an important risk factor for colorectal cancer (1). Early detection of colorectal cancer when it is localized can effectively reduce mortality of colorectal cancer and increase survival time of patients if they are treated. Also, previous studies showed that obese women were more likely to delay breast cancer screening and cervical cancer screening than normal weight women (2-5). However, results from prior studies demonstrating the relationship between obesity and colorectal cancer screening are not consistent. This research was done to conduct a meta-analysis of previous cross-sectional studies selected from the Medline database and to evaluate the association between obesity and colorectal cancer screening. While the odds ratio was not statistically different from one, the results from this meta-analysis under the random effects model showed that obese people are slightly less likely to have colorectal cancer screening compared to normal weight individuals (OR,0.93;95% CI 0.75-1.15). This meta-analysis was particularly sensitive to one individual study (6) and the effect of obesity on colorectal cancer screening was statistically significant (OR, 0.87; 95% CI, 0.81-0.92) after removing Heo's study. Further systematic studies focused on whether the effect of obesity on colorectal cancer screening is limited to women only are suggested. ^

A systematic review of community-based colorectal cancer screening randomized controlled trials with multi-ethnic groups

Background. The CDC estimates that 40% of adults 50 years of age or older do not receive time-appropriate colorectal cancer screening. Sixty percent of colorectal cancer deaths could be prevented by regular screening of adults 50 years of age and older. Yet, in 2000 only 42.5% of adults age 50 or older in the U.S. had received recommended screening. Disparities by health care, nativity status, socioeconomic status, and race/ethnicity are evident. Disparities in minority, underserved populations prevent us from attaining Goal 2 of Healthy People 2010 to “eliminate health disparities.” This review focuses on community-based screening research among underserved populations that includes multiple ethnic groups for appropriate disparities analysis. There is a gap in the colorectal cancer screening literature describing the effectiveness of community-based randomized controlled trials. ^ Objective. To critically review the literature describing community-based colorectal cancer screening strategies that are randomized controlled trials, and that include multiple racial/ethnic groups. ^ Methods. The review includes a preliminary disparities analysis to assess whether interventions were appropriately targeted in communities to those groups experiencing the greatest health disparities. Review articles are from an original search using Ovid Medline and a cross-matching search in Pubmed, both from January 2001 to June 2009. The Ovid Medline literature review is divided into eight exclusionary stages, seven electronic, and the last stage consisting of final manual review. ^ Results. The final studies (n=15) are categorized into four categories: Patient mailings (n=3), Telephone outreach (n=3), Electronic/multimedia (n=4), and Counseling/community education (n=5). Of 15 studies, 11 (73%) demonstrated that screening rates increased for the intervention group compared to controls, including all studies (100%) from the Patient mailings and Telephone outreach groups, 4 of 5 (80%) Counseling/community education studies, and 1 of 4 (25%) Electronic/multimedia interventions. ^ Conclusions. Patient choice and tailoring education and/or messages to individuals have proven to be two important factors in improving colorectal cancer screening adherence rates. Technological strategies have not been overly successful with underserved populations in community-based trials. Based on limited findings to date, future community-based colorectal cancer screening trials should include diverse populations who are experiencing incidence, survival, mortality and screening disparities. ^

Comparing barriers and predictors for colorectal cancer screening between African Americans and Whites

Colorectal cancer (CRC) has been one of the leading causes of cancer death in the United States. Although incidence and mortality rates of colorectal cancer in the United States have decreased in recent years, the disparity in CRC incidence and mortality between African Americans and Whites remain. Disparity in CRC screening rates is believed to be one of the causes that contribute to the disparity in CRC incidence and mortality between these two races. Finding the differences in CRC screening barriers and predictors between these two groups can help us to design more effective intervention programs to improve CRC screening rates for African Americans. However, most of the previous studies have investigated different types of CRC screening barriers for African Americans and/or Whites, but no studies have compared the same CRC screening barriers between African Americans and Whites. The purpose of this study is to describe and compare the same CRC screening barriers between these two races. Using chi-square analysis, significant differences between African Americans and Whites were found for marital status, income and education. Compared to Whites, African Americans were less aware of CRC screening procedures and lacked CRC knowledge. Significant differences were found between African Americans and Whites in the awareness of sigmoidoscopy, colonoscopy and barium enema. After adjusting for sex, education, marital status, and household income, six out of thirteen CRC screening barriers and two out of nine CRC screening predictors remained to be statistically significantly different between African Americans and Whites. The results of this study indicated that different CRC screening barriers and predictors had different impact on African Americans, and African Americans had more CRC barriers to overcome than Whites.^

Racial/ethnic disparities in colorectal cancer screening and survival in a large nationwide population-based cohort

Background. Colorectal cancer (CRC) is the third most commonly diagnosed cancer (excluding skin cancer) in both men and women in the United States, with an estimated 148,810 new cases and 49,960 deaths in 2008 (1). Racial/ethnic disparities have been reported across the CRC care continuum. Studies have documented racial/ethnic disparities in CRC screening (2-9), but only a few studies have looked at these differences in CRC screening over time (9-11). No studies have compared these trends in a population with CRC and without cancer. Additionally, although there is evidence suggesting that hospital factors (e.g. teaching hospital status and NCI designation) are associated with CRC survival (12-16), no studies have sought to explain the racial/ethnic differences in survival by looking at differences in socio-demographics, tumor characteristics, screening, co-morbidities, treatment, as well as hospital characteristics. ^ Objectives and Methods. The overall goals of this dissertation were to describe the patterns and trends of racial/ethnic disparities in CRC screening (i.e. fecal occult blood test (FOBT), sigmoidoscopy (SIG) and colonoscopy (COL)) and to determine if racial/ethnic disparities in CRC survival are explained by differences in socio-demographic, tumor characteristics, screening, co-morbidities, treatment, and hospital factors. These goals were accomplished in a two-paper format.^ In Paper 1, "Racial/Ethnic Disparities and Trends in Colorectal Cancer Screening in Medicare Beneficiaries with Colorectal Cancer and without Cancer in SEER Areas, 1992-2002", the study population consisted of 50,186 Medicare beneficiaries diagnosed with CRC from 1992 to 2002 and 62,917 Medicare beneficiaries without cancer during the same time period. Both cohorts were aged 67 to 89 years and resided in 16 Surveillance, Epidemiology and End Results (SEER) regions of the United States. Screening procedures between 6 months and 3 years prior to the date of diagnosis for CRC patients and prior to the index date for persons without cancer were identified in Medicare claims. The crude and age-gender-adjusted percentages and odds ratios of receiving FOBT, SIG, or COL were calculated. Multivariable logistic regression was used to assess race/ethnicity on the odds of receiving CRC screening over time.^ Paper 2, "Racial/Ethnic Disparities in Colorectal Cancer Survival: To what extent are racial/ethnic disparities in survival explained by racial differences in socio-demographics, screening, co-morbidities, treatment, tumor or hospital characteristics", included a cohort of 50,186 Medicare beneficiaries diagnosed with CRC from 1992 to 2002 and residing in 16 SEER regions of the United States which were identified in the SEER-Medicare linked database. Survival was estimated using the Kaplan-Meier method. Cox proportional hazard modeling was used to estimate hazard ratios (HR) of mortality and 95% confidence intervals (95% CI).^ Results. The screening analysis demonstrated racial/ethnic disparities in screening over time among the cohort without cancer. From 1992 to 1995, Blacks and Hispanics were less likely than Whites to receive FOBT (OR=0.75, 95% CI: 0.65-0.87; OR=0.50, 95% CI: 0.34-0.72, respectively) but their odds of screening increased from 2000 to 2002 (OR=0.79, 95% CI: 0.72-0.85; OR=0.67, 95% CI: 0.54-0.75, respectively). Blacks and Hispanics were less likely than Whites to receive SIG from 1992 to 1995 (OR=0.75, 95% CI: 0.57-0.98; OR=0.29, 95% CI: 0.12-0.71, respectively), but their odds of screening increased from 2000 to 2002 (OR=0.79, 95% CI: 0.68-0.93; OR=0.50, 95% CI: 0.35-0.72, respectively).^ The survival analysis showed that Blacks had worse CRC-specific survival than Whites (HR: 1.33, 95% CI: 1.23-1.44), but this was reduced for stages I-III disease after full adjustment for socio-demographic, tumor characteristics, screening, co-morbidities, treatment and hospital characteristics (aHR=1.24, 95% CI: 1.14-1.35). Socioeconomic status, tumor characteristics, treatment and co-morbidities contributed to the reduction in hazard ratios between Blacks and Whites with stage I-III disease. Asians had better survival than Whites before (HR: 0.73, 95% CI: 0.64-0.82) and after (aHR: 0.80, 95% CI: 0.70-0.92) adjusting for all predictors for stage I-III disease. For stage IV, both Asians and Hispanics had better survival than Whites, and after full adjustment, survival improved (aHR=0.73, 95% CI: 0.63-0.84; aHR=0.74, 95% CI: 0.61-0.92, respectively).^ Conclusion. Screening disparities remain between Blacks and Whites, and Hispanics and Whites, but have decreased in recent years. Future studies should explore other factors that may contribute to screening disparities, such as physician recommendations and language/cultural barriers in this and younger populations.^ There were substantial racial/ethnic differences in CRC survival among older Whites, Blacks, Asians and Hispanics. Co-morbidities, SES, tumor characteristics, treatment and other predictor variables contributed to, but did not fully explain the CRC survival differences between Blacks and Whites. Future research should examine the role of quality of care, particularly the benefit of treatment and post-treatment surveillance, in racial disparities in survival.^

Gender differences in colorectal cancer screening and incidence in large nationwide, population-based cohorts

Background. A few studies have reported gender differences along the colorectal cancer (CRC) continuum but none has done so longitudinally to compare a cancer and a non-cancer populations.^ Objectives and Methods. To examine gender differences in colorectal cancer screening (CRCS); to examine trends in gender differences in CRC screening among two groups of patients (Medicare beneficiaries with and without cancer); to examine gender differences in CRC incidence; and to examine for any differences over time. In Paper 1, the study population consisted of men and women, ages 67–89 years, with CRC (73,666) or without any cancer (39,006), residing in 12 U.S. Surveillance Epidemiology and End-Results (SEER) regions. Crude and age-adjusted percentages and odds ratios of receiving fecal occult blood test (FOBT), sigmoidoscopy (SIG), or colonoscopy (COL) were calculated. Multivariable logistic regression was used to assess gender on the odds of receiving CRC screening over time.^ In Paper 2, age-adjusted incidence rates and proportions over time were reported across race, CRC subsite, CRC stage and SEER region for 373,956 patients, ages 40+ years, residing in 9 SEER regions and diagnosed with malignant CRC. ^ Results. Overall, women had higher CRC screening rates than men and screening rates in general were higher in the SEER sample of persons with CRC diagnosis. Significant temporal divergence in FOBT screening was observed between men and women in both cohorts. Although the largest temporal increases in screening rates were found for COL, especially among the cohort with CRC, little change in the gender gap was observed over time. Receipt of FOBT was significantly associated with female gender especially in the period of full Medicare coverage. Receipt of COL was also significantly associated with male gender, especially in the period of limited Medicare coverage.^ Overall, approximately equal numbers of men (187,973) and women (185,983) were diagnosed with malignant CRC. Men had significantly higher age-adjusted CRC incidence rates than women across all categories of age, race, subsite, stage and SEER region even though rates declined in all categories over time. Significant moderate increases in rate difference occurred among 40-59 year olds; significant reductions occurred among patients age 70+, within subsite rectum, unstaged and distant stage CRC, and eastern and western SEER regions. ^ Conclusions. Persistent gender differences in CRC incidence across time may have implications for gender-based interventions that take age into consideration. A shift toward proximal cancer was observed over time for both genders, but the high proportion of men who develop rectal cancer suggests that a greater proportion of men may need to be targeted with newer screening methods such as fecal DNA or COL. Although previous reports have documented higher CRC screening among men, higher incidence of CRC observed among men suggests that higher risk categories of men are probably not being reached. FOBT utilization rates among women have increased over time and the gender gap has widened between 1998 and 2005. COL utilization is associated with male gender but the differences over time are small.^

Increasing awareness of colorectal cancer screening through targeted exam room based video messages

Colorectal cancer (CRC) is the third largest cause of cancer death in the United States. While the disease burden is high, there are proven methods to screen for CRC and detect it at a stage that is amenable to cure. Patients with low health literacy have difficulty navigating the health care system and are at increased risk to not receive preventive care services such as colorectal cancer screening (CRCS). To address this need, an exam-room based video was developed to be played for patients in the privacy of the exam room, while they are waiting to be seen by their medical provider. In roughly 2 minutes, the video informs the patient about CRC and CRCS and how they can successfully complete CRCS. One of the key barriers to completing CRCS is the need to increase patients' knowledge and improve attitudes surrounding CRCS. This study examines the impact of the video on patients' knowledge and attitudes about CRC and CRCS in a medically underserved patient population in Houston, Texas. ^ Sixty-one patients presenting for routine medical care were enrolled in the study. Depending on their randomization, the patients either received routine information about CRC and CRCS or they watched the video. We found that the patients who did watch the video did have improvements in their knowledge and improved attitudes about CRC and CRCS. Future studies will be needed to examine whether the video improves the patients' completion of CRCS.^

"I understood what she meant when she said '21st century medicine'": A qualitative analysis of patient responses for plans for colorectal cancer screening following a recommendation from their physician

Although physician recommendation has been significantly associated with colorectal cancer screening (CRCS), it still does not motivate all patients to get CRCS. Although improved physician recommendation for CRCS has been shown to increase patient CRCS screening, questions remain about what elements of that discussion may lead to screening. The objective of this study is to describe patients' perceptions and interpretations about their physician's recommendation for CRCS during their annual wellness exam. A subset of patients (n=51) participating in a supplement study of a behavioral intervention trial designed to increase CRCS completed a follow-up, open-ended interview two to four weeks after their annual wellness visit. Using qualitative methods, transcripts of these interviews were analyzed. Findings suggest that most patients would follow their physician's recommendation for CRCS despite not engaging in much discussion. Patients may refrain from CRCS discussion because of a commitment to CRCS, awareness of screening guidelines, and trust in physician's honesty and beneficence. Yet many patients left their wellness exams with questions, refraining because of future plans to consult with their physicians, perceived time constraints or a lack of a patient-physician relationship. If patients are leaving their wellness exams with unanswered questions, interventions should prepare physicians for patient reticence, teaching physicians how to assure patients that CRCS is a primary care activity where all questions and concerns, including cost and scheduling, may be resolved.^

Colorectal cancer screening: Participation and determinants in West Texas

Early detection by screening is the key to colorectal cancer control. However, colorectal cancer screening and its determinants in rural areas have not been adequately studied. This goal of this study was to investigate the screening participation and determinants of colonoscopy, sigmoidoscopy, and/or fecal occult blood test (FOBT) in subjects of Project Frontier from the rural counties of Cochran, Bailey and Parmer, Texas. Subjects ( n=820 with 435 Hispanics, 355 Non-Hispanic Whites, 26 African Americans, and 4 unknown ethnicity; 255 males, 565 females, aged from 40 to 92 years) were from Project FRONTIER. Stepwise logistic regression analysis was performed. Explanatory variables included ethnicity (Hispanic, Non-Hispanic white and African American), gender, health insurance, smoking status, household income, education (years), physical activity, overweight, other health screenings, personal physicians, family history (first-degree relatives) of cancers, and preferred language (English vs. Spanish) for interview/testing. The screening percentage for ever having had a colonoscopy/sigmoidoscopy (51.8%) in this cohort aged 50 years or older is well below the percentage of the nation (65.2%) and Texas (64.6%) while the percentage for FOBT (29.2%) is higher than in the nation (17.2%) and Texas (14.9%). However, Hispanics had significantly lower participation than non-Hispanic whites for colonoscopy/sigmoidoscopy (37.0% vs. 66.0%) and FOBT (16.5% vs. 41.7%), respectively. Stepwise logistic regression showed that predictors for colonoscopy, sigmoidoscopy or FOBT included Hispanic race (p = 0.0045), age (p < 0.0001), other screening procedure (p < 0.0001), insurance status (p < 0.0001) and physician status (p = 0.0053). Screening percentage for colonoscopy/sigmoidoscopy in this rural cohort is well below the national and Texas level mainly due to the lower participation of Hispanics vs. Non-Hispanic whites. Health insurance, having had a personal physician, having had screenings for other cancers, race, and older age are among the main predictors.^

The association of area socioeconomic status and cancer screening: A systematic review and multilevel study

Background. The gap between actual and ideal rates of routine cancer screening in the U.S., particularly for colorectal cancer screening (CRCS) (1;2), is responsible for an unnecessary burden of morbidity and mortality, particularly for disadvantaged groups. Knowledge about the effects of individual and area influences is being advanced by a growing body of research that has examined the association of area socioeconomic status (SES) and cancer screening after controlling for individual SES. The findings from this emerging and heterogeneous research in the cancer screening literature have been mixed. Moreover, multilevel studies in this area have not yet adequately explored the possibility of differential associations by population subgroup, despite some evidence suggesting gender-specific effects. ^ Objectives and methods. This dissertation reports on a systematic review of studies on the association of area SES and cancer screening and a multilevel study of the association between area SES and CRCS. The specific aims of the systematic review are to: (1) describe the study designs, constructs, methods, and measures; (2) describe the association of area SES and cancer screening; and (3) identify neglected areas of research. ^ The empiric study linked a pooled sample of respondents aged ≥50 years without a personal history of colorectal cancer from the 2003 and 2005 California Health Interview Surveys with a comprehensive set of census-tract level area SES measures from the 2000 U.S. Census. Two-level random intercept models were used to test 2 hypotheses: (1) area SES will be associated with adherence to two modalities of CRCS after controlling for individual SES; and (2) gender will moderate the relationship between area socioeconomic status and adherence to both modalities of CRCS. ^ Results. The systematic review identified 19 eligible studies that demonstrated variability in study designs, methods, constructs, and measures. The majority of tested associations were either not statistically significant or significant and in the positive direction, indicating that as area SES increased, the odds of CRCS increased. The multilevel study demonstrated that while multiple aspects of area SES were associated with CRCS after controlling for individual SES, associations differed by screening modality and in the case of endoscopy, they also differed by gender. ^ Conclusions. Conceptual and methodologic heterogeneity and weaknesses in the literature to date limit definitive conclusions about the underlying relationships between area SES and cancer screening. The multilevel study provided partial support for both hypotheses. Future research should continue to explore the role of gender as a moderating influence with the aim of identifying the mechanisms linking area SES and cancer prevention behaviors. ^

Cancer screening behaviors among Asian Americans in Houston, Texas

Background: Cancer is the second-leading cause of death in the United States, and Asian Americans/Pacific Islanders are the only racial/ethnic group for which cancer is the leading cause of death. Regular cancer screenings help to identify precancerous lesions and cancer at an earlier stage, when the cancer is more treatable. Ethnic disparities in participation in cancer screenings are also striking, and evidence indicates that Asian Americans may have lower rates of cancer screening participation than other racial/ethnic groups. The Health of Houston Survey 2010 (HHS 2010) is an address-based survey, administered via telephone, website, and mail, of over 5,000 respondents in Houston and Harris County that provides recent data on the health status and needs of the Houston community. HHS 2010 researchers oversampled for Asians and Vietnamese Americans in order to obtain a sample size large enough to obtain statistical power. This dataset provides a unique opportunity to examine the cancer screening behaviors and predictors of Vietnamese and Chinese Americans living in Houston, Texas.^ Methods: This study was a secondary data analysis of HHS 2010 data. The data were analyzed to compare the breast, cervical, and colorectal cancer screening compliance rates of Vietnamese and Chinese Americans with other racial/ethnic groups in Houston, Texas. Key predictors of participation and barriers to cancer screening were identified.^ Results: The results of this study indicate that in Houston, Vietnamese Americans and Asian Americans as a whole have strikingly lower rates of participation in cancer screenings compared to other ethnic groups. Chinese Americans had the highest rate of noncompliance for mammography of all ethnic groups; Asian Americans and Vietnamese Americans also had high rates of noncompliance. Similarly, Vietnamese and Asian Americans had high rates of noncompliance with colorectal cancer screening recommendations. Importantly, Vietnamese, Chinese, and Asian Americans had by far the worst pap test participation, with noncompliance rates more than double that of all other racial/ethnic groups. In general, the findings indicated several key predictors in cancer screening behaviors, including English language proficiency, years lived in the United States, health insurance, college education, and income; however, the significance and patterns of these variables varied by ethnic group as well as cancer site.^ Conclusions: This secondary analysis highlights the disparities in cancer screening participation among Vietnamese, Chinese, and Asian Americans in Houston, Texas and indicate the need to identify Asian Americans as a high-risk group in need of health promotion attention. Barriers to screening and educational needs appear to be specific to each target ethnic group. Thus, health educators and health professionals in Houston must focus on the specific educational needs of the key ethnic groups that make up the Houston population. Further, more ethnic-specific research is needed to examine the health behaviors and needs of Houston's Asian American subgroups.^

Uncertainty analysis of cost effectiveness in a tailored intervention to promote screening for colorectal cancer

Background. Screening for colorectal cancer (CRC) is considered cost effective but screening compliance in the US remains low. There have been very few studies on economic analyses of screening promotion strategies for colorectal cancer. The main aim of the current study is to conduct a cost effectiveness analysis (CEA) and examine the uncertainty involved in the results of the CEA of a tailored intervention to promote screening for CRC among patients of a multispeciality clinic in Houston, TX. ^ Methods. The two intervention arms received a PC based tailored program and web based educational information to promote CRC screening. The incremental cost of implementing a tailored PC based program was compared to the website based education and the status quo of no intervention for each unit of effect after 12 months of delivering the intervention. Uncertainty analysis in the point estimates of cost and effect was conducted using nonparametric bootstrapping. ^ Results. The cost of implementing a web based educational intervention was $36.00 per person and the cost of the tailored PC based interactive intervention was $43.00 per person. The additional cost per person screened for the web-based strategy was $2374 and the effect of the tailored intervention was negative. ^

Development and preliminary validation of the cancer family impact scale for colorectal cancer

This study aimed to develop and validate The Cancer Family Impact Scale (CFIS), an instrument for use in studies investigating relationships among family factors and colorectal cancer (CRC) screening when family history is a risk factor. We used existing data to develop the measure from 1,285 participants (637 families) across the United States who were in the Johns Hopkins Colon Cancer Genetic Testing study. Participants were 94% white with an average age of 50.1 years, and 60% were women. None had a personal CRC history, and eighty percent had 1 FDR with CRC and 20% had more than one FDR with CRC. The study had three aims: (1) to identify the latent factors underlying the CFIS via exploratory factor analysis (EFA); (2) to confirm the findings of the EFA via confirmatory factor analysis (CFA); and (3) to assess the reliability of the scale via Cronbach's alpha. Exploratory analyses were performed on a split half of the sample, and the final model was confirmed on the other half. The EFA suggested the CFIS was an 18-item measure with 5 latent constructs: (1) NEGATIVE: negative effects of cancer on the family; (2) POSITIVE: positive effects of cancer on the family; (3) COMMUNICATE: how families communicate about cancer; (4) FLOW: how information about cancer is conveyed in families; and (5) NORM: how individuals react to family norms about cancer. CFA on the holdout sample showed the CFIS to have a reasonably good fit (Chi-square = 389.977, df = 122, RMSEA= 0.058 (.052-.065), CFI=.902, TLI=.877, GF1=.939). The overall reliability of the scale was α=0.65. The reliability of the subscales was: (1) NEGATIVE α = 0.682; (2) POSITIVE α = 0.686; (3) COMMUNICATE α = 0.723; (4) FLOW α = 0.467; and (5) NORM α = 0.732. ^ We concluded the CFIS to be a good measure with most fit levels over 0.90. The CFIS could be used to compare theoretically driven hypotheses about the pathways through which family factors could influence health behavior among unaffected individuals at risk due to family history, and also aid in the development and evaluation of cancer prevention interventions including a family component. ^