ABSTRACT
OBJETIVO: Evaluar el impacto de una intervención informativa a profesionales de atención primaria sobre sus conocimientos de cribado de cáncer colorrectal, recomendaciones de vigilancia posterior y estrategias de derivación. Método DISEÑO: Ensayo clínico controlado y aleatorizado por conglomerados. Emplazamiento: centros de atención primaria de L'Hospitalet de Llobregat (Barcelona). PARTICIPANTES: médicos y enfermeras de atención primaria. Intervención: sesión informativa y envío de píldoras informativas en 6 de 12 centros (seleccionados aleatoriamente) sobre el programa de cribado cáncer colorrectal. MEDICIONES PRINCIPALES: cuestionario ad hoc que recoge las características de los profesionales, los centros y 2 variables contextuales; implicación de los profesionales en el programa de cribado; conocimientos sobre el cáncer colorrectal, los factores de riesgo, los procedimientos de cribado, las recomendaciones de seguimiento posterior a la exploración diagnóstica y las estrategias de derivación. RESULTADOS: La media de la puntuación total en el primer cuestionario fue 8,07(1,38) sobre 11 y la del segundo 8,31(1,39). No se encontraron diferencias estadísticamente significativas entre el grupo intervención y control, sin embargo, en 9 preguntas se aumentó el porcentaje de respuestas correctas en el grupo intervención, mayoritariamente relacionadas con el seguimiento posterior a la exploración diagnóstica. CONCLUSIONES: La intervención mejora el porcentaje de respuestas correctas, sobre todo en aquellas en las que se obtuvo peor puntuación en el primer cuestionario. Este estudio muestra que los profesionales están familiarizados con el cribado de cáncer colorrectal, pero es importante tener una comunicación frecuente con ellos para mantener actualizada la información relacionada con el cribado y fomentar su implicación con el mismo
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the impact of an intervention in primary care professionals on their current knowledge about colorectal cancer screening, subsequent surveillance recommendations and referral strategies. Methods DESIGN: Cluster randomized controlled trial. LOCATION: Primary Care Centers in L'Hospitalet de Llobregat (Barcelona). PARTICIPANTS: Primary Care Professionals (doctors and nurses). Intervention: Training session in six of the 12 centers (randomly selected) about the colorrectal cancer screening program, and three emails with key messages. MAIN MEASUREMENTS: Professionals and centers characteristics and two contextual variables; involvement of professionals in the screening program; information about colorectal cancer knowledge, risk factors, screening procedures, surveillance recommendations and referral strategies. RESULTS: The total score mean on the first questionnaire was 8.07 (1.38) and the second 8.31 (1.39). No statistically significant differences between the intervention and control groups were found, however, in 9 out of 11 questions the percentage of correct responses was increased in the intervention group, mostly related to the surveillance after the diagnostic examination. CONCLUSIONS: The intervention improves the percentage of correct answers, especially in those in which worst score obtained in the first questionnaire. This study shows that professionals are familiar with colorectal cancer screening, but there's a need to maintain frequent communication in order to keep up to date the information related to the colorectal cancer screening
Subject(s)
Humans , Health Education/organization & administration , Colorectal Neoplasms/prevention & control , Education, Medical, Continuing/organization & administration , Evaluation of the Efficacy-Effectiveness of Interventions , Early Detection of Cancer , Mass Screening/analysis , Professional Training , Primary Health Care/organization & administrationABSTRACT
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the impact of an intervention in primary care professionals on their current knowledge about colorectal cancer screening, subsequent surveillance recommendations and referral strategies. METHODS DESIGN: Cluster randomized controlled trial. LOCATION: Primary Care Centers in L'Hospitalet de Llobregat (Barcelona). PARTICIPANTS: Primary Care Professionals (doctors and nurses). INTERVENTION: Training session in six of the 12 centers (randomly selected) about the colorrectal cancer screening program, and three emails with key messages. MAIN MEASUREMENTS: Professionals and centers characteristics and two contextual variables; involvement of professionals in the screening program; information about colorectal cancer knowledge, risk factors, screening procedures, surveillance recommendations and referral strategies. RESULTS: The total score mean on the first questionnaire was 8.07 (1.38) and the second 8.31 (1.39). No statistically significant differences between the intervention and control groups were found, however, in 9 out of 11 questions the percentage of correct responses was increased in the intervention group, mostly related to the surveillance after the diagnostic examination. CONCLUSIONS: The intervention improves the percentage of correct answers, especially in those in which worst score obtained in the first questionnaire. This study shows that professionals are familiar with colorectal cancer screening, but there's a need to maintain frequent communication in order to keep up to date the information related to the colorectal cancer screening.
Subject(s)
Colorectal Neoplasms/diagnosis , Early Detection of Cancer , Health Knowledge, Attitudes, Practice , Health Personnel/education , Primary Health Care , Female , Humans , Male , Surveys and QuestionnairesABSTRACT
Fundamento: El objetivo del estudio fue evaluar el cambio de estrategia de cribado (test inmunológico cuantitativo) en un programa poblacional de detección precoz de cáncer colorrectal (CCR) en Cataluña. Métodos: La cuarta ronda del programa de cribado de CCR en Hospitalet de Llobregat se implementó en 2008-2010. Se ofreció un test bioquímico a 50.227 individuos y uno inmunológico cuantitativo a 12.707 individuos. Se analizaron diferencias en las dos estrategias de cribado respecto a variables de aceptabilidad (entre participación, abandonos y adherencia a la colonoscopia), de precisión diagnóstica (valor predictivo positivo y tasas de detección), de resultados (tamaño y localización de lesiones, estadio de los cánceres detectados) y de recursos (número necesario de colonoscopias e intervalo de tiempo entre el resultado positivo del test y la colonoscopia). Resultados: La participación en el cribado fue superior entre los individuos que utilizaron el test inmunológico (OR: 1,35; IC95%:1,27- 1,42). Las tasas de detección fueron superiores para el test inmunológico destacando la de adenomas de alto riesgo (26,7vs 3,0). El valor predictivo positivo para adenomas de alto riesgo fue del 45,0% y del 46,9% en el inmunológico y el guayaco, respectivamente. El número de colonoscopias necesarias para detectar un cáncer fue de casi el doble que en el guayaco (13,6 vs 7,4). Conclusiones: El test inmunológico es una buena estrategia de cribado especialmente sensible para la detección de adenomas de alto riesgo. Sin embargo, requiere realizar un gran número de colonoscopias y por ello se debe disponer de los recursos y medios necesarios (AU)
Background: The aim of this study was to evaluate the screening strategy (quantitative immunological test vs biochemical test) in a population- based screening program for colorectal cancer (CRC) in Catalonia. Methods: The fourth round of a screening program for CRC with a fecal occult blood test was implemented in Hospitalet de Llobregat during 2008-2010.Abiochemical test was offered to 50,227 individuals and a quantitative immunological test was offered to 12,707 individuals. We analysed differences according to the screening strategy in the following variables: acceptability of the target population (participation, dropouts, and adherence to colonoscopy), diagnostic accuracy (positive predictive value and detection rates), results (size and location of lesions, staging of CRC) and resources (number of colonoscopies needed and time interval between the positive test and colonoscopy). Results: Participation was higher among individuals who used the immunological test (OR: 1.35; CI95%:1.27-1.42). Detection rates for adenomas and cancer were also higher for the immunological test, hightlighting the detection rate for high-risk adenomas (26.7 vs. 3.0). The positive predictive value for high-risk adenomas was 45.0% and 46.9% in the immunological test and guaiac test, respectively. The number of colonoscopies needed to detect cancer with the immunological test was almost two-fold than those needed with the guaiac test (13.6 vs 7.4). Conclusions: The immunological test is a good screening strategy particularly sensitive for detecting high-risk adenomas. However, it is paramount to have enough resources to assure the quality of the CRC screening due to the large number of colonoscopies that would be required (AU)
Subject(s)
Humans , Male , Female , Middle Aged , Mass Screening/methods , Early Diagnosis , Clinical Chemistry Tests/methods , Colonoscopy , Outcome and Process Assessment, Health Care/organization & administration , Outcome and Process Assessment, Health Care , Immunologic Tests/methods , Immunologic Tests , Mass Screening/prevention & control , Mass Screening/statistics & numerical data , Clinical Chemistry Tests/statistics & numerical data , Clinical Chemistry Tests/trends , Clinical Chemistry Tests , Outcome and Process Assessment, Health Care/methods , Outcome and Process Assessment, Health Care/trends , Evaluation of Results of Preventive Actions/methods , Evaluation of Results of Preventive Actions/trends , Immunologic Tests/trendsABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: The aim of this study was to evaluate the screening strategy (quantitative immunological test vs biochemical test) in a population-based screening program for colorectal cancer (CRC) in Catalonia. METHODS: The fourth round of a screening program for CRC with a fecal occult blood test was implemented in Hospitalet de Llobregat during 2008-2010. A biochemical test was offered to 50,227 individuals and a quantitative immunological test was offered to 12,707 individuals. We analysed differences according to the screening strategy in the following variables: acceptability of the target population (participation, dropouts, and adherence to colonoscopy), diagnostic accuracy (positive predictive value and detection rates), results (size and location of lesions, staging of CRC) and resources (number of colonoscopies needed and time interval between the positive test and colonoscopy). RESULTS: Participation was higher among individuals who used the immunological test (OR: 1.35; CI95%:1.27-1.42). Detection rates for adenomas and cancer were also higher for the immunological test, hightlighting the detection rate for high-risk adenomas (26.7 vs. 3.0). The positive predictive value for high-risk adenomas was 45.0% and 46.9% in the immunological test and guaiac test, respectively. The number of colonoscopies needed to detect cancer with the immunological test was almost two-fold than those needed with the guaiac test (13.6 vs 7.4). CONCLUSIONS: The immunological test is a good screening strategy particularly sensitive for detecting high-risk adenomas. However, it is paramount to have enough resources to assure the quality of the CRC screening due to the large number of colonoscopies that would be required.