This Article Abstract Full Text (PDF) Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Services Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Madlensky, L. Articles by Goel, V. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Madlensky, L. Articles by Goel, V.

A Comparison of Self-reported Colorectal Cancer Screening with Medical Records¹

Institute of Medical Science [L. M., J. M., V. G.], Department of Public Health Sciences [J. M., V. G.], and Department of Health Management, Policy and Evaluation [J. M., V. G.], University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada, and the Samuel Lunenfeld Research Institute, Mount Sinai Hospital, Toronto, Ontario, Canada [L. M., J. M.]

	Abstract

Top Abstract Introduction Materials and Methods Results Discussion References

 
The purpose of this study was to compare self-reports of colorectal cancer (CRC) screening by fecal occult blood test (FOBT), sigmoidoscopy, and colonoscopy with medical records in a multiprovider health care setting. Relatives of CRC patients residing in Ontario, Canada completed a questionnaire indicating whether or not they had ever had any CRC screening tests. Medical records from physician’s offices and hospitals were compared with the self reports, and where possible, reasons were obtained for nonmatching reports. Medical records for colonoscopies were readily available from various sources, and self-reports of this procedure were very accurate ( statistic for agreement beyond chance = 0.87). For sigmoidoscopy and FOBT, the agreement was poorer ( = 0.29 and 0.32, respectively); however, there were difficulties in obtaining records for these two procedures. Sigmoidoscopy procedures that took place many years ago were difficult to document, and physician’s offices were unable to provide FOBT reports in many cases. Self-reports of colonoscopy were very accurate in this population, whereas self-reports of sigmoidoscopy and FOBT are somewhat less accurate, although this is likely due to challenges in obtaining a confirmatory record rather than an overreporting of tests. In a multiprovider publicly insured health care setting such as Canada, using self-reported information is likely to provide sufficiently accurate information for colonoscopy, but for other CRC screening tests, there may be difficulty in obtaining true estimates of the frequencies of these procedures.

	Introduction

Top Abstract Introduction Materials and Methods Results Discussion References

 
CRC³ screening is recommended for individuals at both average and increased risk by various agencies in both Canada and the United States (1, 2, 3, 4) . The most common modalities for CRC screening are FOBTs, sigmoidoscopy, and colonoscopy; the recommended type and frequency of test vary with the risk level of the individual. Recommendations also vary depending on the health care system, and ultimately the choice of screening modality is made by the patient and/or their physician.

Many studies of CRC screening rely on self-reports of the type, reasons, and frequencies of various tests; yet there is a scant literature on the accuracy of such self-reports. The most thorough examination of the accuracy of self-reported CRC screening was carried out in a HMO in the United States (5) . This study found very high accuracy for reporting of ever having a FOBT (96%), sigmoidoscopy (95%), and colonoscopy (89%), and for both endoscopic tests combined (96%). However, this study group was quite homogeneous (predominantly Caucasian and had belonged to the HMO for at least 4 years). This is in contrast to a study that compared self-reported FOBT with medical records in an African-American community health center. This study found that participants reported having FOBTs more frequently than they actually did [74% reported versus 11% verified (6) ].

One study that compared the self-reports of FOBT in women over the age of 50 years with laboratory records found that self-reports overestimated the amount of screening, with self-reported rates exceeding actual rates by almost 14% (7) . A survey of HMO members with regard to six different cancer screening practices, including FOBT and sigmoidoscopy, demonstrated that self-reports for FOBT and sigmoidoscopy were about 90% sensitive, but there was again a trend toward overreporting the procedures (8) . A similar study found overreporting of FOBT in a telephone survey of specific ethnic groups (white versus Hispanic) but relatively accurate reporting of sigmoidoscopy (9) . Whereas the literature to date indicates that there is a trend toward overreporting of FOBT, there have been few studies that include sigmoidoscopy, and only one that assesses the reporting of colonoscopy.

In general, relying on the reports of survey respondents to determine the frequency of cancer screening behaviors can lead to overestimations of screening activity (6, 7, 8, 9) . There is also a need to assess the accuracy of CRC cancer screening self-reports in the context of a multiprovider health care system (where medical records must be separately obtained from physician’s offices, hospitals, and clinics) rather than within a contained health records setting such as that of a HMO. To date, the accuracy of self-reported CRC screening has not been reported in Canada, which has a universal publicly insured health system, with services delivered in a multiprovider setting. We assess the availability of records from various sources to determine whether they can be used as a "gold standard" for comparison with self-reports.

	Materials and Methods

Top Abstract Introduction Materials and Methods Results Discussion References

 
Participants.
Subjects were accrued from an existing resource, the Ontario Familial Colon Cancer Registry (OFCCR). For a detailed description of the accrual protocol of the Registry, see the article by Cotterchio et al. (10) . Briefly, the OFCCR is a population-based collection of information and biospecimens from newly diagnosed CRC patients in the province of Ontario. Patients who elect to participate are invited to provide specimens for genetic analysis, to provide further information about their diet and medical history, and to involve their family members. Patients provide the names and addresses of eligible relatives (adults who are parents, children, or siblings of a family member with cancer). These relatives are then invited by mail to participate in the OFCCR, and if they agree, they are sent a PHQ and diet questionnaire.

For this study, eligible participants are adults age 35 years and older unaffected by CRC who have returned a PHQ to the OFCCR. Individuals who completed the PHQ but who had indicated to the OFCCR that they wished no further involvement in research were excluded. As of April 2000, 722 relatives had sent back a completed PHQ to the OFCCR.

Self-Reports of CRC Screening.
The "Bowel Screening and Health" section of the PHQ contained questions asking whether the subject had ever had a colonoscopy, sigmoidoscopy, or FOBT, along with a description of each of the tests. Subjects were also asked the reasons for any tests, when the first test was, when the most recent test was, and how many of each test they have had.

Medical Records of CRC Screening.
The package inviting eligible relatives to participate in this study included a cover letter, a reply form, a ROI form giving permission to obtain medical records, an information sheet summarizing the study, and a stamped, addressed return envelope. For participants who completed and signed a ROI form, medical records for FOBTs, sigmoidoscopies, and colonoscopies were requested from the source(s) indicated on the ROI form. Participants were asked to indicate a primary care physician in all cases, and a specialist, hospital, or clinic, if appropriate. The request was sent to physician’s offices by fax and/or mail and included a cover letter and copy of the signed ROI form. Hospitals were mailed the request, which included the cover letter and the original signed ROI form.

Physician’s offices were provided with a stamped, addressed return envelope to facilitate responses and were also provided with a fax number to which records could be sent. Hospitals were provided with the mailing address for returning records only. Different approaches were taken for physician’s offices and hospitals based on previous experience in requesting CRC screening records through the OFCCR. Hospital medical records departments have standard procedures and requirements for responding to requests for medical records, and records are normally received with little or no follow-up within 2 months. However, physician’s offices tend to have poorer response, thus the provision of a fax number and stamped envelope was made in an attempt to facilitate the return of medical records. Nonresponding physician’s offices and hospital medical records departments were called 3 months after the ROI form was sent to follow-up on the initial request.

Medical Records Data.
Medical records received from physician’s offices and hospitals were reviewed to determine the type of tests, dates of tests, and, where possible, reasons for tests. The source of records received was documented. Because records were requested for putative "non-screeners" in addition to those self-reporting screening and diagnostic tests, telephone calls from physician’s offices stating that there were no CRC screening records filed for their patient were accepted as confirmation that no screening had taken place.

Comparing Self-reported Screening with Medical Records.
When the self-report indicated that a test had been done but the records did not confirm a test, cases were reviewed individually to determine possible reasons for the disagreement. Two-by-two tables were constructed for FOBT, sigmoidoscopy, and colonoscopy to compare the self-reports of having ever had the tests with the information in the medical records. For all three tests, the raw percentage agreement was calculated, as well as the statistic for agreement beyond chance. The sensitivity and specificity of self-reports using medical records as the gold standard were also calculated for each test.

	Results

Top Abstract Introduction Materials and Methods Results Discussion References

 
Response Rates.
Of 722 eligible subjects who were sent an invitation to participate and a ROI form, 612 replied (85%), and 398 agreed by completing and returning the ROI form (55% of 722). All participants had been asked to provide the name and address of a primary care physician where any screening records would be located; in all but 12 cases, the information was sufficient to send a request for medical records to a specific physician. A hospital or specialist clinic was identified on 231 ROI forms that were returned, and the information was sufficient in all but 7 cases. Examples of insufficient information include cases where the physician had retired or moved, and no alternate physician name was provided; incorrect address information; physician names for whom a current address could not be located; or hospitals that had closed.

Records were obtained from 285 family physicians (74% of those requested); 97 physicians did not reply, and 4 indicated that there was no such patient on file. For hospitals and specialists, 207 provided records (85% of those requested), 24 did not reply, 11 replied that there was no such patient on file, and 2 did not accept the ROI form because their hospital policy required a specific form to be used. Of the 398 subjects who participated, at least one medical record was obtained for 335 subjects (84%). The medical record was defined as either a copy of a chart note, procedural note, or laboratory report as well as direct correspondence or contact indicating that no such records were in the patient’s chart. A summary diagram of subject, physician, and hospital response rates is shown as Fig. 1 .

View larger version (34K): [in this window] [in a new window]   Fig. 1. Summary of response rates for obtaining medical records. ROI, ROI form.

Of the 722 eligible participants, 234 (32.4%) responded that they had undergone a FOBT, and 42 (5.8%) did not know whether they had ever had this test. For sigmoidoscopy, 166 (23.1%) of subjects reported having had the test, whereas 17 (2.4%) did not know. Two hundred and eighty-five subjects (39.6%) reported having ever had a colonoscopy, and only 6 (0.8%) did not know if they had ever had the test.

FOBTs.
Of the 335 subjects with medical records, 306 indicated "yes" or "no" to having ever had a FOBT; 29 indicated that they did not know. The two-by-two table showing the self-reported FOBT versus medical record of FOBT is shown in Table 1 .

Sigmoidoscopy.
Of the 335 subjects with medical records, 323 indicated "yes" or "no" to having ever had a sigmoidoscopy; 12 indicated that they did not know. The two-by-two table showing the self-reported sigmoidoscopy versus medical record of sigmoidoscopy is shown in Table 2 .

Colonoscopy.
Of the 335 subjects with medical records, 332 indicated "yes" or "no" to having ever had a colonoscopy; 3 indicated that they did not know. The two-by-two table showing the self-reported colonoscopy versus medical record of colonoscopy is shown as Table 3 . Approximately half of the subjects reported having a colonoscopy, and there was very little discrepancy between the two sources with regard to colonoscopy reporting.

	Discussion

Top Abstract Introduction Materials and Methods Results Discussion References

In the case of sigmoidoscopy, however, the difficulty in obtaining records is primarily due to the length of time that had elapsed since the procedure or to the subject not recalling when the procedure was (which is most likely the case if the procedure was a long time ago). Records in Ontario are not required to be kept on file after 10 years, and even if they are kept, such records may go into archival filing, which is not readily accessible by the physician’s office. Whereas there is a good possibility that many subjects can accurately recall having had a sigmoidoscopy many years ago, these procedures are difficult to confirm with medical records. In addition, a subset of subjects may confuse the sigmoidoscopy procedure with colonoscopy; this indicates that perhaps better descriptions of the tests could be developed to help subjects to more accurately describe which test they may have had. This confusion between the two endoscopic procedures has also been noted in other studies (5 , 11) and demonstrates the need to carefully consider the definitions of these procedures in survey and interview research.

Colonoscopy is the only test that proved feasible for directly comparing the self-report with the medical record; the agreement between the two sources was very high for this test. This may be because colonoscopies require an operative note to be dictated, and most colonoscopies take place in outpatient hospital clinics such that there will usually be two sources for the same record, the hospital chart and the family physician chart. Thus, the chances of confirming the procedure are higher than for FOBT and sigmoidoscopy, which are often only recorded in the family physician’s office chart. In addition, the majority of subjects who reported having ever had a colonoscopy also indicated that they had had a test within the last 5 years (data not shown), and so the recency of most colonoscopic procedures likely contributes to the availability of these records.

The only previous study that examined the accuracy of colonoscopy reporting found a high level of accuracy for reporting colonoscopy specifically and an even higher level of accuracy when all endoscopic procedures were combined (5) . This is comparable with the current results, which found a high level of accuracy for colonoscopy alone. For FOBT self-reporting, other studies have consistently found that this test is overreported when compared with medical records. Although that also appears to be the case in the current study, it is not possible to determine whether there is true overreporting of the test or whether the discrepancy exists because of difficulty in obtaining FOBT records.

The population used for this study was accrued through a familial CRC registry, and participants had already indicated a willingness to take part in research by completing a PHQ and further agreeing to grant permission to have their medical records reviewed. In addition, the study cohort was restricted to relatives of CRC patients. Thus, the results of this study may not be applicable to research carried out in a broader population; it is possible that those who participated in the study are more health conscious with regard to CRC and have a more accurate recall of CRC screening tests.

Overall, using self-reported colonoscopy data should be acceptable for future studies when researchers need to determine whether or not a subject did indeed undergo the procedure and when the most recent colonoscopy took place. The self-report of FOBT is probably accurate in the majority of cases, but this is difficult to confirm due to the lack of medical records received from physician’s offices for this particular test. For sigmoidoscopy, it may be helpful to further describe the procedure to help subjects differentiate between it and colonoscopy.

	Acknowledgments

 
We thank the individuals who participated in this study. We are grateful to Ferhana Khan and Sandy Passarelli for work with the data collection. We also thank Dr. Steve Gallinger (Principal Investigator of the OFCCR) for facilitating access to the PHQ data and for helpful comments.

	Footnotes

 
The costs of publication of this article were defrayed in part by the payment of page charges. This article must therefore be hereby marked advertisement in accordance with 18 U.S.C. Section 1734 solely to indicate this fact.

¹ Supported by Canadian Institutes of Health Research Grant CRT-43821. L. M. was supported by a doctoral studentship from the National Cancer Institute of Canada with funds from the Canadian Cancer Society. J. M. was supported as a Scientist of the Canadian Institutes of Health Research. PHQ data collection was supported by the National Cancer Institute, NIH under RFA CA-95-011 and through cooperative agreements with members of the Colon Cancer Family Registry and the Ontario Registry for Studies of Familial Colorectal Cancer (U01 CA074783). This work is part of a doctoral thesis at the University of Toronto.

² To whom requests for reprints should be addressed. Present address: UCSD Cancer Center, 9500 Gilman Drive, La Jolla, CA 92093-0901.

³ The abbreviations used are: CRC, colorectal cancer; FOBT, fecal occult blood test; HMO, health maintenance organization; OFCCR, Ontario Familial Colon Cancer Registry; PHQ, personal history questionnaire; ROI, release of information.

Received 12/12/02; accepted 4/10/03.

	References

Top Abstract Introduction Materials and Methods Results Discussion References

 

1. Winawer S. J., Fletcher R. H., Miller L., Godlee F., Stolar M. H., Mulrow C. D., Woolf S. H., Glick S. N., Ganiats T. G., Bond J. H., Rosen L., Zapka J. G., Olsen S. J., Giardiello F. M., Sisk J. E., Van Antwerp R., Brown-Davis C., Marciniak D. A., Mayer R. J. Colorectal cancer screening: clinical guidelines and rationale. Gastroenterology, 112: 594-642, 1997.[Medline]
2. Simmang C. L., Senatore P., Lowry A., Hicks T., Burnstein M., Dentsman F., Fazio V., Glennon E., Hyman N., Kerner B., Kilkenny J., Moore R., Peters W., Ross T., Savoca P., Vernava A., Wong W. D. Practice parameters for detection of colorectal neoplasms. The Standards Committee, The American Society of Colon and Rectal Surgeons. Dis. Colon Rectum, 42: 1123-1129, 1999.[Medline]
3. Morey S. S. ACS updates Guidelines on Screening for Colorectal Cancer. Am. Fam. Physician, 56: 1887-1888, 1891 1997.[Medline]
4. Solomon M. J., McLeod R. S. Periodic health examination, 1994 update. 2. Screening strategies for colorectal cancer. Canadian Task Force on the Periodic Health Examination. Can. Med. Assoc. J., 150: 1961-1970, 1994.[Abstract]
5. Baier M., Calonge N., Cutter G., McClatchey M., Schoentgen S., Hines S., Marcus A., Ahnen D. Validity of self-reported colorectal cancer screening behavior. Cancer Epidemiol. Biomark. Prev., 9: 229-232, 2000.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
6. Lipkus I. M., Rimer B. K., Lyna P. R., Pradhan A. A., Conaway M., Woods-Powell C. T. Colorectal screening patterns and perceptions of risk among African-American users of a community health center. J. Community Health, 21: 409-427, 1996.[Medline]
7. Mandelson M. T., Curry S. J., Anderson L. A., Nadel M. R., Lee N. C., Rutter C. M., LaCroix A. Z. Colorectal cancer screening participation by older women. Am. J. Prev. Med., 19: 149-154, 2000.[Medline]
8. Gordon N. P., Hiatt R. A., Lampert D. I. Concordance of self-reported data and medical record audit for six cancer screening procedures. J. Natl. Cancer Inst. (Bethesda), 85: 566-570, 1993.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
9. Hiatt R. A., Perez-Stable E. J., Quesenberry C., Jr., Sabogal F., Otero-Sabogal R., McPhee S. J. Agreement between self-reported early cancer detection practices and medical audits among Hispanic and non-Hispanic white health plan members in northern California. Prev. Med., 24: 278-285, 1995.[Medline]
10. Cotterchio M., McKeown-Eyssen G., Sutherland H., Buchan G., Aronson M., Easson A. M., Macey J., Holowaty E., Gallinger S. Ontario Familial Colon Cancer Registry: methods and first-year response rates. Chronic Dis. Can., 21: 81-86, 2000.[Medline]
11. Erban S., Zapka J., Puleo E., Vickers-Lahti M. Colorectal cancer screening in Massachusetts: measuring compliance with current guidelines. Eff. Clin. Pract., 4: 10-7, 2001.[Medline]

This article has been cited by other articles:

				W. Hogg, J. Lemelin, I. Moroz, E. Soto, and G. Russell Improving prevention in primary care: Evaluating the sustainability of outreach facilitation Can Fam Physician, May 1, 2008; 54(5): 712 - 720. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				R. M. Jones, S. J. Mongin, D. Lazovich, T. R. Church, and M. W. Yeazel Validity of Four Self-reported Colorectal Cancer Screening Modalities in a General Population: Differences over Time and by Intervention Assignment Cancer Epidemiol. Biomarkers Prev., April 1, 2008; 17(4): 777 - 784. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				M. R. Partin, J. Grill, S. Noorbaloochi, A. A. Powell, D. J. Burgess, S. W. Vernon, K. Halek, J. M. Griffin, M. van Ryn, and D. A. Fisher Validation of Self-Reported Colorectal Cancer Screening Behavior from a Mixed-Mode Survey of Veterans Cancer Epidemiol. Biomarkers Prev., April 1, 2008; 17(4): 768 - 776. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				T. J. Beebe, S. M. Jenkins, K. J. Anderson, M. E. Davern, and T. H. Rockwood The Effects of Survey Mode and Asking About Future Intentions on Self-Reports of Colorectal Cancer Screening Cancer Epidemiol. Biomarkers Prev., April 1, 2008; 17(4): 785 - 790. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				S. W. Vernon, J. A. Tiro, R. W. Vojvodic, S. Coan, P. M. Diamond, A. Greisinger, and M. E. Fernandez Reliability and Validity of a Questionnaire to Measure Colorectal Cancer Screening Behaviors: Does Mode of Survey Administration Matter? Cancer Epidemiol. Biomarkers Prev., April 1, 2008; 17(4): 758 - 767. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				A. P. Schenck, C. N. Klabunde, J. L. Warren, S. Peacock, W. W. Davis, S. T. Hawley, M. Pignone, and D. F. Ransohoff Data Sources for Measuring Colorectal Endoscopy Use Among Medicare Enrollees Cancer Epidemiol. Biomarkers Prev., October 1, 2007; 16(10): 2118 - 2127. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				H. Fukuda and F. Shinsho Accuracy of health examination results self-reported by Japanese participants J. Public Health Med., September 1, 2007; 29(3): 316 - 320. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				L. Madlensky, D. Daftary, T. Burnett, P. Harmon, M. Jenkins, J. Maskiell, S. Nigon, K. Phillips, A. Templeton, P. J. Limburg, et al. Accuracy of Colorectal Polyp Self-Reports: Findings from the Colon Cancer Family Registry Cancer Epidemiol. Biomarkers Prev., September 1, 2007; 16(9): 1898 - 1901. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				M. Hoffmeister, J. Chang-Claude, and H. Brenner Validity of Self-Reported Endoscopies of the Large Bowel and Implications for Estimates of Colorectal Cancer Risk Am. J. Epidemiol., July 15, 2007; 166(2): 130 - 136. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				S. Khoja, S. E. McGregor, and R. J. Hilsden Validation of self-reported history of colorectal cancer screening Can Fam Physician, July 1, 2007; 53(7): 1192 - 1197. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				C Navarro, M D Chirlaque, M J Tormo, D Perez-Flores, M Rodriguez-Barranco, A Sanchez-Villegas, A Agudo, G Pera, P Amiano, M Dorronsoro, et al. Validity of self reported diagnoses of cancer in a major Spanish prospective cohort study. J. Epidemiol. Community Health, July 1, 2006; 60(7): 593 - 599. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				C. Tannenbaum, N. Mayo, and F. Ducharme Older women's health priorities and perceptions of care delivery: results of the WOW health survey Can. Med. Assoc. J., July 19, 2005; 173(2): 153 - 159. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				A. Y. Kinney, L. E. Bloor, C. Martin, and R. S. Sandler Social Ties and Colorectal Cancer Screening among Blacks and Whites in North Carolina Cancer Epidemiol. Biomarkers Prev., January 1, 2005; 14(1): 182 - 189. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

This Article Abstract Full Text (PDF) Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Services Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Madlensky, L. Articles by Goel, V. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Madlensky, L. Articles by Goel, V.