No abstract

Bowel preparation and postcolonoscopy abdominal complaints are experienced as the most burdensome elements by persons undergoing colonoscopy in a FIT screening program. A more easily tolerable bowel preparation, carbondioxide insufflation, and adequate and timely communication are seen as measures to alleviate the burden and increase satisfaction with the procedure.

No abstract

BackgroundColorectal cancer (CRC) is the third most prevalent type of cancer in the world. Its prognosis is closely related to the disease stage at the time of diagnosis. Early detection of symptomless CRC or precursor lesions through population screening could reduce CRC mortality. However, screening programs are only effective if enough people are willing to participate. This study aims to asses the uptake of a second round of fecal occult blood test (FOBt) based screening and to explore factors that could potentially increase this uptake.Methods and designTwo years after the first screening round, 10.000 average risk persons, aged 50 to 75, will again receive an invitation to participate in immunohistochemical FOBt (iFOBt) based screening. Eligible persons will be recruited through a city population database. Invitees will be randomized to receive either an iFOBt with a faeces collection paper or an iFOBt without a collection paper. The iFOBts will be analyzed in a specialized laboratory at the Academic Medical Centre. Positive iFOBts will be followed by a consultation at our outpatient clinic and, in the absence of contra-indications and after informed consent, by a colonoscopy. The primary outcome measure is the participation rate. Secondary outcome measures are the effect of the addition of a collection paper on the participation rate, reasons for participation and non-participation, measures of informed choice and psychological consequences of screening and measures of psychological and physical burden associated with the iFOBt and the colonoscopy. Another secondary outcome measure is the diagnostic yield of the program.DiscussionIn order to implement population screening for colorectal cancer in the Netherlands, information is needed on the uptake of repeated rounds of FOBt-based screening and on factors that could potentially increase this uptake in the future since effectiveness of such a program depends on the willingness of persons to participate. This study will provide information on the actual uptake and perception of a second round of iFOBt-based screening. The results of this study will contribute to the future implementation of a national colorectal screening program in the Netherlands.Trial registrationDutch Trial register: NTR1327

Background Informed decision making is recognized as important in screening. Invitees should be provided with relevant information, enabling them to make an informed decision. This may be more difficult in ethnic minority and low socio-economic status groups. We aimed to assess the proportion of informed decisions to participate in a faecal immunochemical test (FIT)-based colorectal cancer (CRC) screening pilot and to explore differences in knowledge and attitude across various subgroups.

Discomfort with the collection of a stool sample is a frequently cited barrier for participation in fecal test-based colorectal cancer screening. The objective was to evaluate whether a feces collection paper enhances participation in a fecal immunochemical test (FIT)-based colorectal cancer screening program. Randomized clinical trial. Second round of a biannual Dutch FIT-based colorectal cancer screening program pilot. A random sample of 10 265 individuals from the general population, men and women aged 50-75 years at an average risk for colorectal cancer, was eligible for participation. Invitees were randomized to an FIT-only group (n=5136) or an FIT in combination with a feces collection paper group (n=5129). The main outcome measure was participation in screening. Overall, 5367 tests of 10 265 were returned (52%). In the FIT-only group, 2694 tests were returned [52%; 95% confidence interval (CI): 51-54%] versus 2673 tests in the collection paper group (52%; 95% CI: 51-54%). This difference in the participation rate was not significant (relative risk: 0.99; 95% CI: 0.97-1.04). A feces collection paper does not increase participation rates in FIT-based colorectal cancer screening. Future studies should explore other ways of facilitating participation in colorectal cancer screening programs.

Patient groups, defined by indication for colonoscopy, experience the colonoscopy procedure differently.

Background Colonoscopy is a frequently performed procedure associated with a substantial burden for the patient. Most of what is known about patient satisfaction stems from surveys that target issues doctors believe to be important. It has been noticed that patients often focus on different aspects. Aim To have patients and endoscopists rate the extent to which each of a list of patient-generated issues-of-concern contributes to patient satisfaction with the colonoscopy procedure. Subjects A sample of consecutive patients undergoing colonoscopy in a Dutch tertiary teaching hospital and a convenience sample of endoscopists. Methods Colonoscopy patients and endoscopists were asked to rate on a fi vepoint Likert scale the importance of 55 items concerning the colonoscopy procedure for patient satisfaction. Items were derived from focus group sessions with colonoscopy patients. Endoscopists were invited to rate the importance of the same set of items from a patient perspective. An analysis was carried out of whether patients and endoscopists rated the importance of items differently. Results 69 patients and 34 endoscopists completed the questionnaire. The ratings of the endoscopists were signifi cantly different from those of patients (p<0.0001). Endoscopists underestimated the importance of involving patients in decisions, discussing risks and complications, providing the opportunity for substantive questions and offering a comfortable temperature in the examination room. Endoscopists overestimated the importance of adverse physical symptoms, such as pain and abdominal cramps, and the role of the treating doctor. Conclusions Endoscopists do not have a good perception of the items that contribute most to patient satisfaction with the colonoscopy procedure. Overcoming this gap may be an essential step towards improving patient satisfaction by targeting those concerns most relevant to patients.