4.7 Article Proceedings Paper

Colorectal cancer screening barriers and facilitators in older persons

期刊

PREVENTIVE MEDICINE
卷 50, 期 1-2, 页码 3-10

出版社

ACADEMIC PRESS INC ELSEVIER SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1016/j.ypmed.2009.12.005

关键词

Colorectal cancer; Screening; Older persons; Barriers; Facilitators

资金

  1. NCCDPHP CDC HHS [U50/DP424071] Funding Source: Medline
  2. NATIONAL CENTER FOR CHRONIC DISEASE PREV AND HEALTH PROMO [U50DP424071] Funding Source: NIH RePORTER

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background. This systematic review identifies factors that are most consistently mentioned as either barriers to or facilitators of colorectal cancer (CRC) screening in older persons. Methods. A systematic literature search (1995-2008) was conducted to identify studies that reported barriers to or facilitators of CRC screening uptake, compliance or adherence specifically for older persons (>= 65 years). Information on study characteristics and barriers and facilitators related to subjects; healthcare providers; policies; and screening tests were then abstracted and analyzed. Results. Eighty-three studies met the eligibility criteria. Low level of education, African American race, Hispanic ethnicity, and female gender were the most frequently reported barriers, whereas being married or living with a partner was the most frequently reported facilitator. The most cited barrier related to healthcare providers was lack of screening recommendation by a physician; having a usual source of care was a commonly reported facilitator. Lack of health insurance, and dual coverage with Medicare and Medicaid were the most frequently reported barriers, whereas Medicare's coverage of screening colonoscopy was consistently reported as a facilitator. Conclusions. Barriers to, and facilitators of, CRC screening among older persons are reported. Particular attention should be paid to modifiable factors that could become the focus of interventions aimed at increasing CRC screening participation in older persons. (C) 2009 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据