Table 10Studies of the association of age with CRC screening

Author, Year
Study Design
Population Setting
Sample Size
Study AimsPrimary Outcome of Interest for ReviewPredictors ExaminedPotential Confounders/ConsideredVariables Associated with CRC Screening*Results (95% CI)
Berkowitz et al., 200855

Cross-sectional, retrospective, national

HINTS (2003) respondents 65–89 years old

N = 1,148 (583 not up-to-date with screening)

Assess beliefs and perceptions of risk about CRC and gaps in knowledge about screening in adults aged 65–89 yearsFOBT (within past year) or FS or colonoscopy in past 10 years (self-report)Age (65–74 vs. 75–89 years)Gender, race, income, education, marital status, family history of CRC, health status, regular source of care, annual MD visits, knowledge about CRC and testing, beliefs about CRC, perceived risk↑ Older patients (75–89 years)Older patients were more likely than younger patients to be up to date with CRC screening (AOR, 1.92; 95% CI, 1.32–2.79; P < 0.001)
Ananthakrishnan et al., 2007150

Cross-sectional, retrospective, 3 states

Medicare physician/supplier billing claims in Florida, Illinois, and New York, 2002–2003, 65+ years

N = 596,470

Identify effects of some demographic characteristics on screening behaviorAny test (colonoscopy, FS, double-contrast barium enema, or FOBT) (claims)Age (65–69; 70–74; 75–79; 80+)Race, sex, per-capita income, education↓ Oldest patientsPatients 80+ years were less likely to have received any CRC test than other age groups, regardless of income (RR range, 0.84–0.90).

AOR, adjusted odds ratio; CI, confidence interval; CRC, colorectal cancer; FOBT, fecal occult blood test; FS, flexible sigmoidoscopy; HINTS, Health Information National Trends Survey; MD, Medical Doctor; P, probability; RR, relative risk.


Arrow symbols (↓ or ↑) are provided as a quick reference point of overall findings and represent the association reported between each variable and CRC screening.

From: 4, Results

Cover of Enhancing the Use and Quality of Colorectal Cancer Screening
Enhancing the Use and Quality of Colorectal Cancer Screening.
Evidence Reports/Technology Assessments, No. 190.
Holden DJ, Harris R, Porterfield DS, et al.

NCBI Bookshelf. A service of the National Library of Medicine, National Institutes of Health.