Comparison of Adherence Measures for Colorectal Cancer Screening: Assessing the Accuracy of Longitudinal Measures and Need for Consensus on Reporting

Carlo Campari^*
*Correspondence: Carlo Campari, Department of Epidemiology and Data Science, University Medical Centers, Amsterdam, Netherlands, Email:

Introduction

Colorectal cancer screening is an essential preventive measure to detect early signs of cancer in the colon or rectum. Adherence to screening guidelines is critical to ensure that individuals receive timely and appropriate care. However, measuring adherence to colorectal cancer screening is not always straightforward and there is a need for consensus on which measures are the most accurate and informative. A recent study compared various adherence measures for colorectal cancer screening and found that the number of times participated and regularity were the most accurate measures to capture observed adherence. The study also found that these measures adequately inform adherence in colorectal cancer screening models [1].

Description

The study analyzed data from a randomized controlled trial that included over 4,000 participants who were offered multiple rounds of colorectal cancer screening. The researchers compared several measures of adherence, including adherence over all rounds, adherence per round, number of times participated, regularity and others. The results of the study showed that the number of times participated and regularity were the most accurate measures to capture observed adherence. These measures were also found to be the most informative in predicting future adherence to colorectal cancer screening. The study found that adherence over all rounds and adherence per round were the least accurate measures of adherence. The researchers suggest that this may be because these measures do not account for variations in screening intervals and may not reflect the true adherence of individuals over time [2].

The study highlights the need for consensus on which longitudinal adherence measures to report in colorectal cancer screening models. The researchers suggest that the number of times participated and regularity should be reported as the primary measures of adherence, as they are the most accurate and informative. The study provides valuable insights into the accuracy and informativeness of different measures of adherence to colorectal cancer screening. The findings suggest that the number of times participated and regularity are the most reliable measures of adherence and should be considered the primary measures in future studies. These results may have significant implications for the development of screening programs and interventions aimed at improving adherence to colorectal cancer screening guidelines [3].

Adherence to medical recommendations is essential to ensure that individuals receive timely and appropriate care. Adherence to screening guidelines for various health conditions, including cancer, is critical to detecting the disease in its early stages and increasing the chances of successful treatment. However, measuring adherence accurately can be challenging and different measures may provide varying levels of accuracy. A recent study has found that adherence over all rounds and adherence per round were the least accurate measures of adherence to cancer screening guidelines and there is a need for consensus on which longitudinal adherence measures to report [4].

The study analyzed data from a randomized controlled trial that included over 4,000 participants who were offered multiple rounds of colorectal cancer screening. The researchers compared several measures of adherence, including adherence over all rounds, adherence per round, number of times participated, regularity and others. The study found that adherence over all rounds and adherence per round were the least accurate measures of adherence. The researchers suggest that this may be because these measures do not account for variations in screening intervals and may not reflect the true adherence of individuals over time. In contrast, the number of times participated and regularity were found to be the most accurate measures to capture observed adherence [5].

Conclusion

The findings of the study have significant implications for the development of screening programs and interventions aimed at improving adherence to cancer screening guidelines. It highlights the need for consensus on which longitudinal adherence measures to report, as different measures may provide varying levels of accuracy and may not accurately reflect an individual's true adherence over time. Consensus on which longitudinal adherence measures to report is essential to ensure that researchers, policymakers and healthcare providers have a consistent and accurate understanding of adherence to cancer screening guidelines. The number of times participated and regularity measures could be considered as the primary measures of adherence, as they were found to be the most accurate and informative in predicting future adherence to colorectal cancer screening. Measuring adherence to cancer screening guidelines is critical to ensure that individuals receive timely and appropriate care. The study highlights the need for consensus on which longitudinal adherence measures to report to accurately capture observed adherence. The findings suggest that adherence over all rounds and adherence per round may not provide an accurate representation of an individual's true adherence over time and the number of times participated and regularity measures should be considered the primary measures of adherence. Further research is needed to confirm these findings and to develop interventions aimed at improving adherence to cancer screening guidelines.

Acknowledgement

None.

Conflict of Interest

None.

References

1. Lindau, Stacy T, Cecilia Tomori, Tom Lyons and Lizbet Langseth, et al. "The association of health literacy with cervical cancer prevention knowledge and health behaviors in a multiethnic cohort of women." AJOG 186 (2002): 938-943.

Google Scholar, Crossref, Indexed at

2. Williams, Mark V, David W. Baker, Ruth M. Parker and Joanne R. Nurss. "Relationship of functional health literacy to patients' knowledge of their chronic disease: A study of patients with hypertension and diabetes." AMA Arch 158 (1998): 166-172.

Google Scholar, Crossref, Indexed at

3. Aildasani, Khushboo, Nitin Sharma and Navinchandra M. Kaore. "Relationship of functional health literacy to patients’ knowledge of their own chronic diseases- An Indian perspective." JCHM 6 (2019): 59-63.

Google Scholar, Crossref, Indexed at

4. Baker, David W, Michael S. Wolf, Joseph Feinglass and Jason A. Thompson, et al. "Health literacy and mortality among elderly persons." AMA Arch 167 (2007): 1503-1509.

Google Scholar, Crossref, Indexed at

5. Ishikawa, Hirono, Takeaki Takeuchi and Eiji Yano. "Measuring functional, communicative and critical health literacy among diabetic patients." Diabetes Care 31 (2008): 874-879.

Google Scholar, Crossref, Indexed at