Skip to main content

Advertisement

Log in

Physician and patient factors associated with ordering a colon evaluation after a positive fecal occult blood test

  • Original Articles
  • Published:
Journal of General Internal Medicine Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: Successful colorectal cancer screening relies in part on physicians ordering a complete diagnostic evaluation of the colon (CDE) with colonoscopy or barium enema plus sigmoidoscopy after a positive screening fecal occult blood test (FOBT).

DESIGN: We surveyed primary care physicians about colorectal cancer screening practices, beliefs, and intentions. At least 1 physician responded in 318 of 413 (77%) primary care practices that were affiliated with a managed care organization offering a mailed FOBT program for patients aged ≥50 years. Of these 318 practices, 212 (67%) had 602 FOBT+ patients from August through November 1998. We studied 184 (87%) of these 212 practices with 490 FOBT+ patients after excluding those judged ineligible for a CDE or without demographic data. Three months after notification of the FOBT+ result, physicians were asked on audit forms if they had ordered CDEs for study patients. Patient- and physician-predictors of ordering CDEs were identified using logistic regression.

MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: A CDE was ordered for only 69.5% of 490 FOBT+ patients. After adjustment, women were less likely to have had CDE initiated than men (adjusted odds, 0.66; confidence interval, 0.44 to 0.97). Physician survey responses indicating intermediate or high intention to evaluate a FOBT+ patient with a CDE were associated with nearly 2-fold greater adjusted odds of actually initiating a CDE in this circumstance versus physicians with a low intention.

CONCLUSIONS: Primary care physicians often fail to order CDE for FOBT+ patients. A CDE was less likely to be ordered for women and was influenced by physician’s beliefs about CDEs.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. CDC WONDER Compressed Mortality Database 1999. Available at: http://wonder.cdc.gov/mortSQL.shtml. Accessed April 23, 2003.

  2. Hardcastle JD, Chamberlain JO, Robinson MH, et al. Randomized controlled trial of faecal-occult-blood screening for colorectal cancer. Lancet. 1996;348:1472–7.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Kronborg O, Fenger C, Olsen J, Jorgensen OD, Sondergaard O. Randomized study of screening for colorectal cancer with fecal-occult-blood test. Lancet. 1996;348:1467–71.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Mandel JS, Bond JH, Church TR, et al. Reducing mortality from colorectal cancer by screening for fecal occult blood. Minnesota Colon Cancer Control Study. N Engl J Med. 1993;328:1365–71.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Mandel JS, Church TR, Bond JH, et al. The effect of fecal occult blood screening on the incidence of colorectal cancer. N Engl J Med. 2000;343:1603–7.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. State- and sex-specific prevalence of selected characteristics—Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System, 1996 and 1997. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 2000;49:1–39.

    Google Scholar 

  7. Sharma VK, Vasudeva R, Howden CW. Colorectal cancer screening and surveillance practices by primary care physicians: results of a national survey. Am J Gastroenterol. 2000;95:1551–6.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. U.S. Preventive Services Task Force. Guide to clinical preventive services: Report of the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force. 2nd ed. Baltimore, Md: Williams and Wilkins; 1996:89–103.

    Google Scholar 

  9. Byers T, Levin B, Rothenberger D, Dodd GD, Smith RA. American Cancer Society guidelines for screening and surveillance for early detection of colorectal polyps and cancer: update 1997. American Cancer Society Detection and Treatment Advisory Group on Colorectal Cancer. CA Cancer J Clin. 1997;47:154–60.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Myers RE, Hyslop T, Gerrity M, et al. Physician intention to recommend complete diagnostic evaluation in colorectal cancer screening. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prevent. 1999;8:587–93.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Azjen I, Fishbein M. Understanding, Attitudes, and Predicting Social Behavior. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall; 1980.

    Google Scholar 

  12. Bandura A. Social Foundations of Thought and Action: A Social Cognitive Theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall; 1986.

    Google Scholar 

  13. Myers RE, Fishbein G, Hyslop T, et al. Measuring complete diagnostic evaluation in colorectal cancer screening. Cancer Detect Prev. 2001;25:174–82.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Shields HM, Weiner MS, Henry DR, et al. Factors that influence the decision to do an adequate evaluation of a patient with a positive stool for occult blood. Am J Gastroenterol. 2001;96:196–203.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. Lieberman D. Screening/early detection model for colorectal cancer. Why screen? Cancer. 1994;74:2023–7.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. Mandelblatt J, Andrews H, Kao R, Wallace R, Kerner J. The late-stage diagnosis of colorectal cancer: demographic and socioeconomic factors. Am J Public Health. 1996;86:1794–7.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  17. Donovan JM, Syngal S. Colorectal cancer in women: an under-appreciated but preventable risk. J Womens Health. 1998;7:45–8.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  18. Erblich J, Bovbjerg DH, Norman C, Valdimarsdottir HB, Montgomery GH. It won’t happen to me: lower perception of heart disease risk among women with family histories of breast cancer. Prev Med. 2000;31:714–21.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  19. Mandelson MT, Curry SJ, Anderson LA, et al. Colorectal cancer screening participation by older women. Am J Prev Med. 2000;19:149–54.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  20. Richards C, Klabunde C, O’Malley M. Physicians’ recommendations for colon cancer screening in women. Too much of a good thing? Am J Prev Med. 1998;15:246–9.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  21. Schulman KA, Berlin JA, Harless W, et al. The effect of race and sex on physicians’ recommendations for cardiac catheterization. N Engl J Med. 1999;340:618–26.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  22. Daly SC, Roger VL, Leibson C, et al. Cardiology services after stress testing: are there sex differences? A population-based study. J Clin Epidemiol. 2000;53:661–8.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  23. Turner BJ, Markson LE, McKee LJ, Houchens R, Fanning T. Health care delivery, zidovudine use, and survival of women and men with AIDS. J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr. 1994;7:1250–62.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  24. Mocroft A, Gill MJ, Davidson W, Phillips AN. Are there gender differences in starting protease inhibitors, HAART, and disease progression despite equal access to care? J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr. 2000;24:475–82.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  25. Arfken CL, Borisova N, Klein C, di Menza S, Schuster CR. Women are less likely to be admitted to substance abuse treatment within 30 days of assessment. J Psychoactive Drugs. 2002;34:33–8.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Pignone M, Rich M, Teutsch SM, Berg AO, Lohr KN. Screening for colorectal cancer in adults at average risk: a summary of the evidence for the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force. Ann Intern Med. 2002;137:132–41.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Nikolajevic-Sarunac J, Henry DA, O’Connell DL, Robertson J. Effects of information framing on the intentions of family physicians to prescribe long-term hormone replacement therapy. J Gen Intern Med. 1999;14:591–8.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  28. Borum ML. Cancer screening in women by internal medicine resident physicians. South Med J. 1997;90:1101–5.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  29. Massari V, Retel O, Flahault A. How do general practitioners approach hepatitis C virus screening in France? Eur J Epidemiol. 1999;15:119–24.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  30. Fender GR, Prentice A, Gorst T, et al. Randomised controlled trial of educational package on management of menorrhagia in primary care: the Anglia menorrhagia education study. BMJ. 1999;318:1246–50.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  31. Block B, Branham RA. Efforts to improve the follow-up of patients with abnormal Papanicolaou test results. J Am Board Fam Pract. 1998;11:77–9.

    Google Scholar 

  32. McCarthy BD, Yood MU, Janz NK, Boohaker EA, Ward RE, Johnson CC. Evaluation of factors potentially associated with inadequate follow-up of mammographic abnormalities. Cancer. 1996;77:2070–6.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  33. Thomson-O’Brien MA, Oxman AD, Davis DA, Haynes RB, Freemantle N, Harvey EL. Educational outreach visits: effects on professional practice and health care outcomes. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2000;2:CD000409.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Barbara Turner MD, MSEd.

Additional information

This study was supported by a grant from the National Cancer Institute.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Turner, B., Myers, R.E., Hyslop, T. et al. Physician and patient factors associated with ordering a colon evaluation after a positive fecal occult blood test. J GEN INTERN MED 18, 357–363 (2003). https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1525-1497.2003.20525.x

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1525-1497.2003.20525.x

Key words

Navigation