4.7 Article

Prospective evaluation of screening colonoscopy: who is being screened?

期刊

GASTROINTESTINAL ENDOSCOPY
卷 60, 期 6, 页码 921-926

出版社

MOSBY-ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/S0016-5107(04)02231-X

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: Universal access to medical procedures is deemed an advantage of the Canadian health care system. The purposes of this prospective study were to determine the degree to which the practice of colon cancer screening by colonoscopy differed among socioeconomic classes and to assess adherence to screening guidelines. Methods: Consecutive patients scheduled to undergo colonoscopy at a single center between August 2000 and August 2002 completed a questionnaire that determined patient characteristics and indications for the procedure. The patients were divided into two groups: screening patients, defined as individuals who indicated they were undergoing colonoscopy for screening purposes and were asymptomatic, and a control group, which comprised patients undergoing colonoscopy because of symptoms. Statistical analysis was performed to determine if patients in the screening group had different characteristics with respect to socioeconomic class, compared with the control group. Results: A total of 1088 patients completed the questionnaire: 707 (65%) had colonoscopy because of symptoms, compared with 381 (35%) who underwent a screening examination. Mean age and marital status were similar in both groups. Of all colonoscopy procedures, there was a significantly greater proportion of men undergoing colonoscopy for screening purposes: 199 (52.2%) vs. 294 (41.6%) in the symptomatic group (p = 0.001). Based on the Cochran-Armitage test, patients in the screening group had significantly higher education levels (p = 0.004) and household incomes (P = 0.001). Conclusions: Income and education level, two indices of socioeconomic status, are statistically significantly higher in patients undergoing screening colonoscopy compared with those having colonoscopy for any other reason.

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