Evaluating approaches to increase uptake of colorectal cancer screening: lessons learned from pilot studies in diverse primary care settings

Colorectal cancer screening: low health literacy and limited English proficiency among Asians and Whites in California

The authors examined the relationship between low health literacy (LHL), limited English proficiency (LEP), and meeting current U.S. Preventive Service Task Force colorectal cancer (CRC) screening guidelines for Asians and Whites in California. For 1,478 Asian and 14,410 White respondents 50-75 years of age in the 2007 California Health Interview Survey, the authors examined meeting CRC screening guidelines using multivariable logistic models by LEP and LHL separately and in combination. Analyses were run with the full sample, then separately for Whites and Asians controlling for demographics and insurance. For those with LEP, patient-provider language concordance and CRC screening was examined. Overall, respondents with LEP and LHL were the least likely to meet CRC screening guidelines (36%) followed by LEP-only (45%), LHL-only (51%), and those with neither LHL nor LEP (59%), a hierarchy that remained significant in multivariable models. For Whites, LHL-only was associated with screening, whereas LEP-only and LEP and LHL were significant for Asians. Having a language concordant provider was not significantly associated with CRC screening among those with LEP. Health literacy is associated with CRC screening, but English proficiency is also critical to consider. Asians with both LEP and LHL appear particularly vulnerable to cancer screening disparities.

Literacy barriers to colorectal cancer screening in community clinics

This article examines the relationship between literacy and colorectal cancer (CRC) screening knowledge, beliefs, and experiences, with a focus on fecal occult blood tests (FOBTs). Participants were 975 patients in 8 Louisiana federally qualified health centers. Participants were 50 years of age or older and not up to date with CRC screening; approximately half (52%) had low literacy (less than a 9th-grade level). Participants with low literacy were less likely than were those with adequate literacy to be aware of advertisements promoting CRC screening (58.7% vs. 76.3%, p < .0001) or to believe it was very helpful to find CRC early (74.5% vs. 91.9%, p < .0001). The majority of participants had positive beliefs about the benefits of CRC screening using FOBTs. Participants with low literacy had more perceived barriers to FOBT completion and were more likely to strongly agree or agree that FOBTs would be confusing, embarrassing, or a lot of trouble; however, none of these remained significant in multivariate analyses controlling for relevant covariates. Confidence in being able to obtain an FOBT kit was high among those with low and adequate literacy (89.8% vs. 93.1%, respectively, p = .20); yet multivariate analyses revealed a significant difference in regard to literacy (p = .04) with low-literacy participants indicating less confidence. There was no significant difference by literacy in ever receiving a physician recommendation for CRC screening (38.4% low vs. 39.0% adequate, p = .79); however, multivariate analyses revealed significant differences in FOBT completion by literacy (p = .036). Overall, findings suggest that literacy is a factor in patients' CRC knowledge, beliefs, and confidence in obtaining a FOBT.

Is discussion of colorectal cancer screening options associated with heightened patient confusion?

BACKGROUND

Clinical guidelines recommend offering patients options for colorectal cancer (CRC) screening, but the modalities vary by frequency, accuracy, preparations, discomfort, and cost, which may cause confusion and reduce screening rates. We examined whether patients reported confusion about the options and whether confusion was associated with socio-demographic characteristics, number of options discussed, and adherence.

METHODS

Patients ages 50 to 75 years who had visited a clinician within 2 years were randomly selected for a cross-sectional study (n = 6,100). A questionnaire mailed in 2007 asked the following: whether a clinician had ever discussed CRC screening options; which of four recommended tests (i.e., fecal occult blood testing, flexible sigmoidoscopy, colonoscopy, and barium enema) were presented; and whether the options were confusing. Analyses were restricted to respondents who reported discussing one or more screening options (n = 1,707). Weighted frequencies were calculated and multivariate logistic regression was done.

RESULTS

The sample was 55.5% female, 15.6% African American, and 83.2% adherent to screening recommendations, and 56.0% had discussed two or more screening options. In adjusted analyses, nonadherent patients reported greater confusion than adherent patients (P < 0.01). Adults who discussed two or more options were 1.6 times more likely to be confused than those who discussed one option [95% confidence interval (CI), 1.08-2.26]. Patients who reported being confused were 1.8 times more likely to be nonadherent to screening than those who did not (95% CI, 1.14-2.75).

CONCLUSIONS

Our study provides the first empirical evidence linking multiple options with confusion and confusion with screening adherence.

IMPACT

Confusion may act as a barrier to screening and should be considered in public health messages and interventions.