4.7 Article

Non-compliance with the initial screening exam visit in the Prostate, Lung, Colorectal and Ovarian (PLCO) Cancer Screening Trial

Journal

PREVENTIVE MEDICINE
Volume 67, Issue -, Pages 82-88

Publisher

ACADEMIC PRESS INC ELSEVIER SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1016/j.ypmed.2014.07.013

Keywords

Mass screening; Adherence; Compliance; Cancer; Randomized controlled trial as subject

Funding

  1. Division of Cancer Prevention, National Cancer Institute [N01-CN-25476, N01-CN-25514, N01-CN-25522, N01-CN-25515, N01-CN-25512, N01-CN-25513, N01-CN-25516, N01-CN-25511, N01-CN-25524, N01-CN-25518, N01-CN-75022, N02-CN-55203-76, N02-CN-35001-45]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Objective. Identify predictors of non-compliance with first round screening exams in the Prostate, Lung, Colorectal and Ovarian (PLCO) Cancer Screening Trial. Method. The PLCO was conducted from 1993 to 2011 at 10 US institutions. A total of 154,897 healthy men and women ages 55-74 years were randomized. Intervention arm participants were invited to receive gender-appropriate screening exams for prostate, lung, colorectal and ovarian cancer. Using intervention-arm data (73,036 participants), non-compliance percentages for 13 covariates were calculated, as were unadjusted and adjusted odds ratios (ORs), and 95% confidence intervals. Covariates included demographic factors as well as factors specific to PLCO (e.g., method of consent, distance from screening center). Results. The rate of non-compliance was 11% overall but varied by screening center. Significant associations were observed for most covariates but indicated modest increases or decreases in odds. An exception was the use of a two-step consent process (consented intervention arm participants for exams after randomization) relative to a one-step process (consented all participants prior to randomization) (OR: 2.2, 95% CI: 2.0-2.5). Non-compliance percentages increased with further distance from screening centers, but ORs were not significantly different from 1. Conclusions. Many factors modestly influenced compliance. Consent process was the strongest predictor of compliance. Published by Elsevier Inc.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available