Leonie van Dam
Research Subjects
Leonie van Dam has a total of 27 co-authors. Here are the top co-authors by number of shared publications:
- Ewout Willem Steyerberg
University Medical Center Utrecht
3 shared publications E.J. Kuipers
2 shared publicationsL. Hol
2 shared publicationsM. van Ballegooijen
2 shared publicationsM.E. van Leerdam
2 shared publicationsA.H.C. van Roon
1 shared publication
Latest Publications
- 1 April 2014
- Published by Elsevier in Best Practice & Research Clinical Gastroenterology
- Vol. 28 (2) , 315-326
Ethical issues in colorectal cancer screening
- 1 April 2014
- Published by Elsevier in Best Practice & Research Clinical Gastroenterology
- Vol. 28 (2) , 315-326
Ethical issues in colorectal cancer screening
- 1 July 2013
- Published by Elsevier in European Journal of Cancer
- Vol. 49 (10) , 2321-2330
What influences the decision to participate in colorectal cancer screening with faecal occult blood testing and sigmoidoscopy?
- 1 July 2013
- Published by Elsevier in European Journal of Cancer
- Vol. 49 (10) , 2321-2330
What influences the decision to participate in colorectal cancer screening with faecal occult blood testing and sigmoidoscopy?
- 27 February 2013
- Published by Georg Thieme Verlag KG in Endoscopy
- Vol. 45 (03) , 182-188
Time requirements and health effects of participation in colorectal cancer screening with colonoscopy or computed tomography colonography in a randomized controlled trial
Background and study aims: Time limitations and unwanted health effects may act as barriers to participation in colorectal cancer (CRC) screening. The aim of the study was to measure the time requirements and health effects of colonoscopy and computed tomography colonography (CTC) screening. Patients and methods: This was a prospective diary study in a consecutive sample within a randomized controlled CRC screening trial, comparing primary colonoscopy and CTC screening for average-risk individuals aged 50 – 74 years. The diary ended when all screening-related complaints had passed. Results: The diary was returned by 75 % (241/322) of colonoscopy and 75 % (127/170) of CTC screenees. The median interval between leaving home and returning from the examination was longer for colonoscopy (4 hours and 18 minutes [4:18], interquartile range [IQR] 3:30 – 5:00) than for CTC (2:30 hours, IQR 2:06 – 3:00; P < 0.001). Similarly, the time to return to routine activities was longer after colonoscopy (3:54 hours, IQR 1:48 – 15:00) than after CTC (1:36 hours, IQR 0:54 – 4:42). The duration of screening-related symptoms after the examination was shorter for colonoscopy (11:00 hours, IQR 2:54 – 20:00) than for CTC (22:00 hours; IQR 5:30 – 47:00; P < 0.001). Abdominal complaints were reported more frequently after CTC. Anxiety, pain, and quality of life worsened during the screening process, with no differences between the two examinations. Conclusions: Compared with colonoscopy, CTC screening required less time and allowed screenees to return to their daily activities more quickly. In contrast, CTC was associated with a twofold longer duration of screening-related symptoms. Feelings of anxiety, pain, and quality of life scores were similar during colonoscopy and CTC screening. These results should be incorporated into cost-effectiveness analyses of CRC screening techniques.
- 27 February 2013
- Published by Georg Thieme Verlag KG in Endoscopy
- Vol. 45 (03) , 182-188
Time requirements and health effects of participation in colorectal cancer screening with colonoscopy or computed tomography colonography in a randomized controlled trial
Background and study aims: Time limitations and unwanted health effects may act as barriers to participation in colorectal cancer (CRC) screening. The aim of the study was to measure the time requirements and health effects of colonoscopy and computed tomography colonography (CTC) screening. Patients and methods: This was a prospective diary study in a consecutive sample within a randomized controlled CRC screening trial, comparing primary colonoscopy and CTC screening for average-risk individuals aged 50 – 74 years. The diary ended when all screening-related complaints had passed. Results: The diary was returned by 75 % (241/322) of colonoscopy and 75 % (127/170) of CTC screenees. The median interval between leaving home and returning from the examination was longer for colonoscopy (4 hours and 18 minutes [4:18], interquartile range [IQR] 3:30 – 5:00) than for CTC (2:30 hours, IQR 2:06 – 3:00; P < 0.001). Similarly, the time to return to routine activities was longer after colonoscopy (3:54 hours, IQR 1:48 – 15:00) than after CTC (1:36 hours, IQR 0:54 – 4:42). The duration of screening-related symptoms after the examination was shorter for colonoscopy (11:00 hours, IQR 2:54 – 20:00) than for CTC (22:00 hours; IQR 5:30 – 47:00; P < 0.001). Abdominal complaints were reported more frequently after CTC. Anxiety, pain, and quality of life worsened during the screening process, with no differences between the two examinations. Conclusions: Compared with colonoscopy, CTC screening required less time and allowed screenees to return to their daily activities more quickly. In contrast, CTC was associated with a twofold longer duration of screening-related symptoms. Feelings of anxiety, pain, and quality of life scores were similar during colonoscopy and CTC screening. These results should be incorporated into cost-effectiveness analyses of CRC screening techniques.
- 1 January 2013
- Published by Elsevier in The Lancet Oncology
- Vol. 14 (1) , e38-e46
The price of autonomy: should we offer individuals a choice of colorectal cancer screening strategies?
- 1 January 2013
- Published by Elsevier in The Lancet Oncology
- Vol. 14 (1) , e38-e46
The price of autonomy: should we offer individuals a choice of colorectal cancer screening strategies?
- 1 August 2010
- Published by Elsevier in Best Practice & Research Clinical Gastroenterology
- Vol. 24 (4) , 479-492
Performance improvements of stool-based screening tests
- 1 August 2010
- Published by Elsevier in Best Practice & Research Clinical Gastroenterology
- Vol. 24 (4) , 479-492
Performance improvements of stool-based screening tests
- 1 January 2010
- Published by Elsevier in European Journal of Cancer
- Vol. 46 (1) , 150-159
What determines individuals’ preferences for colorectal cancer screening programmes? A discrete choice experiment
- 1 January 2010
- Published by Elsevier in European Journal of Cancer
- Vol. 46 (1) , 150-159
What determines individuals’ preferences for colorectal cancer screening programmes? A discrete choice experiment