Colorectal cancer screening education, prioritization, and self-perceived preparedness among primary care residents: Data from a national survey
Colorectal cancer screening education, prioritization, and self-perceived preparedness among primary care residents: Data from a national survey
复制标题
DOI：
10.1007/bf03174119
复制
发表时间：
2007-12-01
影响因子：
1.6
通讯作者：
Limburg, Paul J.
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Oxentenko, Amy S.;Goel, Nisheeth K.;Limburg, Paul J.
背景结直肠癌（CRC）筛查在美国仍然没有得到充分利用。我们进行了一项全国性的CRC筛查教育调查，优先级，以及家庭实践（FP），内科（IM）和妇产科（OB/GYN）培训计划中住院医生的自我感知准备。方法主任/行政人员。通过电子邮件联系了1085个FP、IM和OB/GYN培训项目，要求将参加我们基于网络的CRC筛查教育调查的邀请转发给他们项目中的所有居民。萎靡不振的居民以匿名的方式提交了回复。资料分析采用X2检验和方差分析.结果总共有243名项目主任/管理员转发了我们的邀请，835名居民做出了回应（384名FP，266名IM，177名OB/GYN，8名未指定的专业）。几乎所有居民应答者（89%）都接受过CRC筛查教育，但报告的内容传递方法很少，大多数人对建议患者进行CRC筛查（90%），目前认可的CRC筛查指南（89%）和用于识别家族性CRC综合征的标准（50%）感到至少有些舒适或有些知识。然而，很少有受访者表示在这些领域感到非常舒适或非常了解（分别为45%，23%和5%）。程序专业，培训水平和性别是自我感知准备的最强指标。结论.虽然基于所有FP，IM和OB/GYN居民的相对较小的样本，但这些数据表明，在初级保健住院医师计划中，有切实的机会改善CRC筛查课程。
Background. Colorectal cancer (CRC) screening remains underutilized in the United States. We conducted a national survey of CRC screening education, prioritization, and self-perceived preparedness among resident physicians in Family Practice (FP), Internal Medicine (IM), and Obstetrics & Gynecology (OB/GYN) training programs. Methods Directors/administrators. from 1085 FP, IM, and OB/GYN training programs were contacted by e-mail with a request to forward an invitation to participate in our Web-based CRC screening education survey to all residents in their program. Wilting residents submitted responses in anonymous fashion. Data were analyzed using X 2 tests and analysis of variance methods. Results. In total, 243 program directors/ administrators forwarded our invitation, and 835 residents responded (384 FP, 266 IM, 177 OB/GYN, 8 undesignated specialty). Nearly all resident responders (89%) had received CRC screening education, but few content delivery methods were reported, Most felt at least somewhat comfortable or somewhat knowledgeable with respect to advising patients about CRC screening (90%), currently endorsed CRC screening guidelines (89%), and criteria used to identify familial CRC syndromes (50%). However, substantially fewer respondents reported feeling very comfortable or very knowledgeable in these areas (45%, 23%, and 5%, respectively). Program specialty, level of training, and gender were the strongest indicators of self-perceived preparedness. Conclusions. Although based on a relatively small sample of all FP, IM, and OB/GYN residents, these data suggest tangible opportunities to improve the CRC screening curriculum in primary care residency programs.