Validation of the Consumer Health Activation Index (CHAI) in general population samples of older Australians

Comparing a fecal immunochemical test and circulating tumor DNA blood test for colorectal cancer screening adherence

BACKGROUND AND AIM

Colorectal cancer (CRC) screening programs are most effective at reducing disease incidence and mortality through sustained screening participation. A novel blood test modality is being explored for CRC screening, but it is unclear whether it will provide sustained screening participation. This study aimed to investigate whether a circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA) blood test improved CRC screening re-participation when compared with a fecal immunochemical test (FIT) and to define the predictors of sustained CRC screening in an Australian population.

METHODS

South Australians who initially participated in CRC screening using a ctDNA blood test (n = 36) or FIT (n = 547) were offered the same CRC screening test approximately 2 years later through an extended phase of a randomized controlled trial. Surveys collected demographic, psychosocial, and clinical information. Predictors of CRC screening re-participation were explored using chi-square, Wilcoxon tests, and logistic regression.

RESULTS

Participants offered a second ctDNA blood test were equally likely to re-participate in CRC screening as those who completed a FIT in the first round and who were offered the same test (61% vs 66% re-participation respectively, P = 0.6). CRC fatalism, health activation, and self-efficacy were associated with repeated screening participation. Test awareness was predictive of repeated FIT-based CRC screening.

CONCLUSIONS

Targeted interventions to improve CRC screening awareness and increase patient health activation may improve CRC screening adherence. A ctDNA blood test may be a suitable CRC screening option to maintain CRC screening adherence in people who do not participate in screening with FIT.

A Systematic Review of the Reliability and Validity of the Patient Activation Measure Tool

Patient activation, broadly defined as the ability of individuals to manage their health and navigate the healthcare system effectively, is crucial for achieving positive health outcomes. The Patient Activation Measure (PAM), a popularly used tool, was developed to assess this vital component of health care. This review is the first to systematically examine the validity of the PAM, as well as study its reliability, factor structure, and validity across various populations. Following the PRISMA and COSMIN guidelines, a search was conducted in MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Cochrane Library, from inception to 1 October 2023, using combinations of keywords related to patient activation and the PAM. The inclusion criteria were original quantitative or mixed methods studies focusing on PAM-13 or its translated versions and containing data on psychometric properties. Out of 3007 abstracts retrieved, 39 studies were included in the final review. The PAM has been extensively studied across diverse populations and geographical regions, including the United States, Europe, Asia, and Australia. Most studies looked at populations with chronic conditions. Only two studies applied the PAM to community-dwelling individuals and found support for its use. Studies predominantly showed a high internal consistency (Cronbach's alpha > 0.80) for the PAM. Most studies supported a unidimensional construct of patient activation, although cultural differences influenced the factor structure in some cases. Construct validity was established through correlations with health behaviors and outcomes. Despite its strengths, there is a need for further research, particularly in exploring content validity and differential item functioning. Expanding the PAM's application to more diverse demographic groups and community-dwelling individuals could enhance our understanding of patient activation and its impact on health outcomes.