AI Article Synopsis

  • Previous studies show that self-reported adherence to mammography and colonoscopy screening aligns over 90% with electronic medical records (EMRs), indicating reliable monitoring of Healthy People goals, but this is not the case for cervical and lung cancer screenings where concordance is lower.
  • This study aims to validate and ensure the reliability of cancer screening questions from the 2021 and 2022 National Health Interview Survey (NHIS), comparing responses to EMRs across four U.S. healthcare systems.
  • A randomized trial will be conducted with a sample size of around 1576 for validity and 1260 for reliability, evaluating various statistical metrics while suggesting a re-evaluation of conventional concordance measures in cancer screening assessments.

Article Abstract

Previous studies demonstrate that self-reports of mammography screening for breast cancer and colonoscopy screening for colorectal cancer demonstrate concordance, based on adherence to screening guidelines, with electronic medical records (EMRs) in over 90% of those interviewed, as well as high sensitivity and specificity, and can be used for monitoring our Healthy People goals. However, for screening tests for cervical and lung cancers, and for various sub-populations, concordance between self-report and EMRs has been noticeably lower with poor sensitivity or specificity. This study aims to test the validity and reliability of lung, colorectal, cervical, and breast cancer screening questions from the 2021 and 2022 National Health Interview Survey (NHIS). We present the protocol for a study designed to measure the validity and reliability of the NHIS cancer screening questions compared to EMRs from four US-based healthcare systems. We planned a randomized trial of a phone- vs web-based survey with NHIS questions that were previously revised based on extensive cognitive interviewing. Our planned sample size will be 1576 validity interviews, and 1260 interviews randomly assigned at 1 or 3 months after the initial interview. We are enrolling people eligible for cancer screening based on age, sex, and smoking history per US Preventive Services Task Force recommendations. We will evaluate question validity using concordance, sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, negative predictive value, and report-to-records ratio. We further are randomizing participants to complete a second survey 1 vs 3 months later to assess question reliability. We suggest that typical measures of concordance may need to be reconsidered in evaluating cancer screening questions.

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10911603PMC
http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0297773PLOS

Publication Analysis

Top Keywords

cancer screening
20
screening questions
16
validity reliability
12
sensitivity specificity
12
screening
9
measure validity
8
cervical lung
8
questions 2021
8
national health
8
health interview
8

Similar Publications

Want AI Summaries of new PubMed Abstracts delivered to your In-box?

Enter search terms and have AI summaries delivered each week - change queries or unsubscribe any time!