Dr. T.R. Levin, a gastroenterologist at Kaiser Permanente Medical Center in Walnut, Creek, California, has a YouTube video on Kaiser’s widespread use of blood stool test kits for colon cancer screening. Click here to see the video.
Opinions on other issues in news, journals, PR, advertising, marketing
Come on, NY Times; you must do better than this. Important research doesn’t need hype and the “breaking news” BS doesn’t help readers or patients. https://www.healthnewsreview.org/2022/03/nyt-proclaims-breaking-news/
Our editorial team was blessed to have Sharon as a contributor during our best years. As this obit states, she was “kind, patient, wise, thoughtful and generous.” Thank you, Sharon; now rest in peace. https://journalism.wisc.edu/news/in-memoriam-sharon-dunwoody-1947-2022/
We’ve written about the hype of liquid biopsies for years (see link in comment below). And now this…. https://www.statnews.com/2022/01/12/medicare-shouldnt-cover-liquid-biopsies-early-cancer-detection/
Comments
Please note, comments are no longer published through this website. All previously made comments are still archived and available for viewing through select posts.
Marilyn Mann
March 20, 2010 at 7:21 amI think they could have done a better job of stating the benefits and risks.
KateMurphy
March 22, 2010 at 4:37 pmOne reason that Kaiser Permanente can use the FIT test to screen for colorectal cancer is that they have an electronic medical record that follows patients to make sure they get tested every year.
FIT needs to be repeated annually while screening colonoscopy can be done every ten years.
They also can make sure that positive tests are followed up with colonoscopy — a point that Dr.Levin does not make. In fact, by crossing out the dreaded colonoscopy, he is not being totally honest with patients.
T. R. Levin
March 23, 2010 at 11:48 amFirst of all, a big thank you to Gary for helping to get the word out about our video. It was made primarily for Kaiser Permanente Members to help open the conversation with their primary care provider and get them interested in the prospect of screening. There is a natural spillover that occurs when using YouTube, that we hope will lead to a broader conversation with people who are not KP members.
The video has two goals: encourage people to get screened for colorectal cancer and to change the conversation so that annual FIT can be seen on the same footing as every 10 year colonoscopy (as they are in the US Preventive Services Task Force CRC guideline). The current US approach to CRC screening is based primarily on colonoscopy. This has limitations: it has a relatively high risk of complications compared to other screening tests, is inconvenient for people to do, and it isn’t available everywhere across the country. Our colonoscopy based strategy in the US has gotten us to a national CRC screening rate of only 55%. To get to higher levels of CRC screening, we need options that people are willing to do, and that they can access regardless of where they live.
The video is only one part of our screening approach. As Kate Murphy explains, we have several advantages at KP to help make FIT feasiible and reliable. We exploit those with our screening program and the video. We rely on our systems to find people who are positive and our physicians to inform people who need a colonoscopy about what is involved and why it is needed. We deliberately made the video short to keep it interesting. The printed materials that accompany the kit inform people about what to expect if their test is negative (annual screening) or positive (colonoscopy).
Most adults in the US have heard only one message about CRC screening: colonoscopy. We use this video to get the message out that FIT is a good alternative. It’s easy to do, and lots of people are already doing it (3,000 every day). If you’ve been on the fence about CRC screening because you don’t want a colonoscopy, we have a good alternative.
Our Comments Policy
But before leaving a comment, please review these notes about our policy.
You are responsible for any comments you leave on this site.
This site is primarily a forum for discussion about the quality (or lack thereof) in journalism or other media messages (advertising, marketing, public relations, medical journals, etc.) It is not intended to be a forum for definitive discussions about medicine or science.
We will delete comments that include personal attacks, unfounded allegations, unverified claims, product pitches, profanity or any from anyone who does not list a full name and a functioning email address. We will also end any thread of repetitive comments. We don”t give medical advice so we won”t respond to questions asking for it.
We don”t have sufficient staffing to contact each commenter who left such a message. If you have a question about why your comment was edited or removed, you can email us at feedback@healthnewsreview.org.
There has been a recent burst of attention to troubles with many comments left on science and science news/communication websites. Read “Online science comments: trolls, trash and treasure.”
The authors of the Retraction Watch comments policy urge commenters:
We”re also concerned about anonymous comments. We ask that all commenters leave their full name and provide an actual email address in case we feel we need to contact them. We may delete any comment left by someone who does not leave their name and a legitimate email address.
And, as noted, product pitches of any sort – pushing treatments, tests, products, procedures, physicians, medical centers, books, websites – are likely to be deleted. We don”t accept advertising on this site and are not going to give it away free.
The ability to leave comments expires after a certain period of time. So you may find that you’re unable to leave a comment on an article that is more than a few months old.
You might also like