Barriers and Facilitators for Colorectal Cancer Screening Practices in the Latino Community: Perspectives from Community Leaders

Natale-Pereira, Ana; Marks, Jonnie; Vega, Marielos; Mouzon, Dawne M.; Hudson, Shawna V.; Salas‐Lopez, Debbie

doi:10.1177/107327480801500208

Cited by 77 publications

(65 citation statements)

References 16 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Despite the fact that provider's language has been cited to be an important predictor of Hispanics' completion of screening 45 and that a large number of our study participants preferred their provider to speak Spanish as compared to those who preferred English (47.1% vs 10.8%), neither the preferred nor the actual spoken language of the healthcare provider was associated with participants' adherence to their provider's screening recommendation (P=0.391). Similarly, the preferred healthcare provider's race or ethnicity was not associated with adherence.…”

Section: Resultscontrasting

confidence: 58%

Adherence to Physician Recommendation to Colorectal Cancer Screening Colonoscopy Among Hispanics

et al. 2011

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Resultscontrasting

confidence: 58%

Adherence to Physician Recommendation to Colorectal Cancer Screening Colonoscopy Among Hispanics

et al. 2011

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…16 Language appears to be a significant factor. 17 Compared to white non-Hispanics, Spanishspeaking Hispanics were 43% less likely to receive CRC screening. 18 Communication problems when discussing cancer screening are also documented with VietnameseAmericans.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Patient-Provider Language Concordance and Colorectal Cancer Screening

et al. 2010

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: Patient-provider language barriers may play a role in health-care disparities, including obtaining colorectal cancer (CRC) screening. Professional interpreters and language-concordant providers may mitigate these disparities. DESIGN, SUBJECTS, AND MAIN MEASURES:We performed a retrospective cohort study of individuals age 50 years and older who were categorized as EnglishConcordant (spoke English at home, n=21,594); Other Language-Concordant (did not speak English at home but someone at their provider's office spoke their language, n=1,463); or Other Language-Discordant (did not speak English at home and no one at their provider's spoke their language, n=240). Multivariate logistic regression assessed the association of language concordance with colorectal cancer screening. KEY RESULTS: Compared to English speakers, nonEnglish speakers had lower use of colorectal cancer screening (30.7% vs 50.8%; OR, 0.63; 95% CI, 0.51-0.76). Compared to the English-Concordant group, the Language-Discordant group had similar screening (adjusted OR, 0.84; 95% CI, 0.58-1.21), while the Language-Concordant group had lower screening (adjusted OR, 0.57; 95% CI, 0.46-0.71). CONCLUSIONS: Rates of CRC screening are lower in individuals who do not speak English at home compared to those who do. However, the Language-Discordant cohort had similar rates to those with English concordance, while the Language-Concordant cohort had lower rates of CRC screening. This may be due to unmeasured differences among the cohorts in patient, provider, and health care system characteristics. These results suggest that providers should especially promote the importance of CRC screening to non-English speaking patients, but that language barriers do not fully account for CRC screening rate disparities in these populations.

show abstract

“…With declining reimbursements, physicians are trying to offset decrease in revenue by seeing more patients within a set time, which precludes having time for a meaningful dialogue with their patient. Many patients feel frustrated that physicians do not spend enough time explaining recommendations or procedures [4]. In a recent survey of patients who were recommended screening colonoscopy during office visits, almost half the patients mentioned that alternative tests to screening colonoscopy were not discussed with them, further confirming that communication between physicians and patients can be improved [5].…”

Section: Declining Patient-physician Interactionmentioning

confidence: 81%

How can we improve patient education resources for colorectal cancer screening?

Chittajallu¹,

Agrawal

2014

Colorect. Cancer

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

KEYWORDS• barriers • colonoscopy • colorectal cancer • educational resources • health content • readability • screening • suitability Colorectal cancer (CRC) is the second leading cause of death by cancer in the United States. CRC is one of the easiest cancers to treat when detected early, yet more than a third of patients diagnosed with colon cancer every year die prematurely [1]. CDC estimates that 10,000 additional deaths could be prevented each year if all adults aged ≥50 years receive recommended CRC screening [2]. Currently, the CRC screening rates are estimated to be 65%, which are a long way off from the American Cancer Society's goal of 75% by 2015. Even this goal appears questionable now. It is interesting to note that the awareness of people for CRC screening lags significantly behind two other cancers with screening programs -breast cancer and cervical cancer.Physicians, professional medical organizations, interest groups and healthcare institutions have made significant efforts to increase CRC screening but they have not had the desired effect. For patients to undergo CRC screening -they should have access to information, they should understand it, feel motivated to take the desired action and finally the healthcare system should be conducive to patients getting screened (e.g., physicians should be readily available and health insurance should cover the costs). Inadequacies in any or all of these would result in lower CRC screening rates.Giving information and motivating patients to get screened is something that the physicians can and should do. However, it is important to know that merely giving information about CRC screening is not enough -the way the information is presented to the patients makes a big difference. In a randomized controlled study, women at average risk for CRC at an obstetrics/gynecology clinic were given information on CRC in printed form or via a customized website, but only 12% chose to get CRC screening within 4 months [3].In this review, we will discuss a crucial and often overlooked aspect of CRC screening -the quality of information being given to the patients and how physicians can use the science of health literacy and behavioral medicine to better convince their patients to get screened.

show abstract

Barriers and Facilitators for Colorectal Cancer Screening Practices in the Latino Community: Perspectives from Community Leaders

Abstract: To ensure that the specific needs and health beliefs of the Latino community are addressed, future research should incorporate community input to create more tailored and effective cancer educational programs for Latinos.

Cited by 77 publications

References 16 publications

Adherence to Physician Recommendation to Colorectal Cancer Screening Colonoscopy Among Hispanics

Adherence to Physician Recommendation to Colorectal Cancer Screening Colonoscopy Among Hispanics

Patient-Provider Language Concordance and Colorectal Cancer Screening

How can we improve patient education resources for colorectal cancer screening?

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About