IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/aph/ajpbhl/20009091431-1435_0.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Accuracy of patients' recall of Pap and cholesterol screening

Author

Listed:
  • Newell, S.
  • Girgis, A.
  • Sanson-Fisher, R.
  • Ireland, M.

Abstract

Objectives. This study was undertaken in mid-1994 and assessed how accurately patients recall the recency and result of their most recent cholesterol and Papanicolaou (Pap) tests. Methods. A cross-sectional, door-to-door community survey was used to gather self-report and, subsequently, pathology laboratory data for 195 individuals. Results. In regard to cholesterol screening, 30% of individuals who reported being adequately screened were actually inadequately screened, 45% who reported normal cholesterol levels actually had elevated levels, and 21% of inadequately screened individuals and 56% of individuals with elevated levels were not identified by self-report. In terms of Pap screening, 28% of women who reported being adequately screened were actually inadequately screened, 11% of patients who reported a normal Pap rest actually had abnormal or inadequate results, and 55% of inadequately screened individuals and 53% of individuals with abnormal or inadequate results were not identified by self-report. Conclusions. This study revealed self-report to be a less-than-adequate measure of individuals' recall of cholesterol and Pap screening. Relying exclusively on self-report surveys as indicators of screening coverage is likely to result in significant underestimations of the proportion of people who are inadequately screened or whose results indicate a need for intervention.

Suggested Citation

  • Newell, S. & Girgis, A. & Sanson-Fisher, R. & Ireland, M., 2000. "Accuracy of patients' recall of Pap and cholesterol screening," American Journal of Public Health, American Public Health Association, vol. 90(9), pages 1431-1435.
  • Handle: RePEc:aph:ajpbhl:2000:90:9:1431-1435_0
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    To our knowledge, this item is not available for download. To find whether it is available, there are three options:
    1. Check below whether another version of this item is available online.
    2. Check on the provider's web page whether it is in fact available.
    3. Perform a search for a similarly titled item that would be available.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:aph:ajpbhl:2000:90:9:1431-1435_0. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Christopher F Baum (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.apha.org .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.