4.7 Article Proceedings Paper

Colorectal cancer screening knowledge, attitudes, and beliefs among veterans: Does literacy make a difference?

Journal

JOURNAL OF CLINICAL ONCOLOGY
Volume 22, Issue 13, Pages 2617-2622

Publisher

AMER SOC CLINICAL ONCOLOGY
DOI: 10.1200/JCO.2004.10.149

Keywords

-

Categories

Funding

  1. NCI NIH HHS [R01CA86424-01A2] Funding Source: Medline

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Purpose To evaluate whether lower literacy is associated with poorer knowledge and more negative attitudes and beliefs toward colorectal cancer screening among veterans without recent colorectal cancer screening. Patients and Methods Three hundred seventy-seven male veterans, age 50 years and older, who had not undergone recent colorectal cancer screening, were surveyed about their knowledge, attitudes, and beliefs regarding colorectal cancer screening. Patients' literacy was assessed with the Rapid Estimate of Adult Literacy in Medicine, an individually administered screening test for reading. Results Thirty-six percent of the 377 men had an eighth grade literacy level or higher. Men with lower literacy were 3.5 times as likely not to have heard about colorectal cancer (8.8% v 2.5%; P = .006), 1.5 times as likely not to know about screening tests (58.4% v 40.9%; P = .0001), and were more likely to have negative attitudes about fecal occult blood testing (FOBT), but not about flexible sigmoidoscopy. Specifically, men with lower literacy skills were two times as likely to be worried that FOBT was messy (26.7% v 13.3%; P = .008), 1.5 times as likely to feel that FOBT was inconvenient (28.7% v 18%; P = .05), and four times as likely to state they would not use an FOBT kit even if their physician recommended it (17.9% v 4.0%; P = .02). Conclusion Limited literacy may be an overlooked barrier in colorectal cancer screening among veterans.

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