Evaluating the Effectiveness of a Modified Colorectal Cancer Screening Program in Almaty, Kazakhstan

Raushan Zholmurzayeva, Dinara Ospanova, А.Т. ДЖУМАБЕКОВ, Yoshihiro Noso, N. A. Talkimbaeva, Akmaral Aytmanbetova, Neilya Ussebayeva, Tagabay Zhorayev, Ildar Ravisovich Fakhradiyev

Asian Pacific Journal of Cancer Prevention, 2023

Full text Open access: Gold Metadata (CSL-JSON)
DOI 10.31557/apjcp.2023.24.10.3605
Data confidence 85 high
How this score is calculated

It is built from checkable properties of the record itself: whether the article has a DOI, how many independent sources confirmed its data, whether the required fields are filled in, and how recent the latest confirmation is. Disagreement between sources and a missing identifier lower it. A value of 80 or above means the record was published without further checking; 60 to 79 means it is published at reduced confidence, with a manual check advisable. A record verified by an editor by hand is never pushed below 90 by a recalculation. This scores our data about the article, not the article itself.

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to evaluate the effectiveness of a modified colorectal cancer (CRC) screening program, incorporating culturally tailored strategies to increase screening uptake and compliance, in Almaty, Kazakhstan. METHODS: A cross-sectional study was conducted in Almaty between 2019-2022, involving 5370 participants aged 50-70 from diverse settings. Participants were assigned to the main (modified method) and comparison (standard method) groups based on the parity of their ID number digits. Variables of interest included demographics, somatic comorbidities, disability degree, and CRC screening results. The modified screening emphasized healthcare prioritization, optimized nursing resources, enhanced accessibility, and preparedness for the second screening stage. RESULTS: In the study 2702 patients in the main group (modified method), and 2668 patients in the comparison group (standard method). Comorbidity data showed that the majority of participants in both groups had between 1-10 comorbidities, with an average of 8.2 in the main group and 8.1 in the comparison group. Screening response rates at stage I were higher in the main group, with 82.6% of subjects undergoing screening, compared to 78.9% in the comparison group (χ2=12.12, p=0.001). The response rates were higher among females in both groups, and no significant differences were found across age groups. At stage II, the response rate was again higher in the main group (56.2%) than in the comparison group (47.2%) (χ2=4.217, p=0.040), with no significant differences noted in relation to sex or age. However, the main group showed a higher response rate at stage I among respondents with 6-10 comorbidities (87.1% vs 82.5%, χ2 =7.820, p=0.009). CONCLUSION: The study demonstrates that the modified program significantly outperformed the traditional one, achieving higher response rates at both the initial and subsequent stages of screening. These findings emphasize the value of revisiting and refining current CRC screening methods to maximize early detection rates.