“Do We Really Need All That Equipment?“: Factors Influencing Colorectal Cancer Screening Decisions

Wackerbarth, Sarah B.; Peters, Jane; Haist, Steven A.

doi:10.1177/1049732304273759

Cited by 26 publications

(30 citation statements)

References 12 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Not go to the doctors for control unless people do not feel fine, negatively affect the early diagnosis. The same idea has been expressed in other studies (Boyer et al, 2001;Wackerbarth et al, 2005, Johnson et al, 2008.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 60%

“…In our study, it is glad to see that the rate of people with the thought of taking physical examination and tests are not a sin is quite high for a country like Turkey, which is an Islamic one. Other studies found that women preferred to be examined by female doctors (Boyer et al, 2001;Austin et al, 2002;Wackerbarth et al, 2005;Johnson et al, 2008). The half of the people stated that cancer is a case that comes from Allah.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Many theories have been developed to explain healthrelated behaviors, and one of the most prominent is the health belief model (Wackerbarth et al, 2005). The Health Belief Model (HBM) addresses the individual's perceptions of the threat posed by a health problem (susceptibility, severity), the benefits of avoiding the threat, and factors influencing the decision to act (barriers, cues to action, and self-efficacy).…”

Section: Theroretical Frameworkmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Turkish Social Attitudes towards to Cancer Prevention: a Health Belief Model Study

Duran¹,

Koç²,

Korkmaz³

2014

Asian Pacific Journal of Cancer Prevention

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 60%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Theroretical Frameworkmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Turkish Social Attitudes towards to Cancer Prevention: a Health Belief Model Study

Duran¹,

Koç²,

Korkmaz³

2014

Asian Pacific Journal of Cancer Prevention

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…These factors include lack of information about the disease and screening methods, negative attitudes toward screening preparation and procedures, and perceptions of low level of risk for the disease [4,[8][9][10][11][12][13][14]. In addition, several studies have indicated the importance of the recommendation of a physician in influencing a patient's colorectal cancer screening decision [15][16][17][18].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Physician colorectal cancer screening recommendations: An examination based on informed decision making

Wackerbarth

Tarasenko

Joyce

et al. 2007

Patient Education and Counseling

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective-The purpose of this research was to examine the content of physicians' colorectal cancer screening recommendations. More specifically, using the framework of informed decision making synthesized by Braddock and colleagues, we conducted a qualitative study of the content of recommendations to describe how physicians are currently presenting this information to patients.Methods-We conducted semi-structured interviews with 65 primary care physicians. We analyzed responses to a question designed to elicit how the physicians typically communicate their recommendation.Results-Almost all of the physicians (98.5%) addressed the "nature of decision" element. A majority of physicians discussed "uncertainties associated with the decision" (67.7%). Fewer physicians covered "the patient's role in decision making" (33.8%), "risks and benefits" (16.9%), "alternatives" (10.8%), "assessment of patient understanding" (6.2%), or "exploration of patient's preferences" (1.5%). Conclusion-Wepropose that the content of the colorectal screening recommendation is a critical determinant to whether a patient undergoes screening. Our examination of physician recommendations yielded mixed results, and the deficiencies identified opportunities for improvement.Practice implications-We suggest primary care physicians clarify that screening is meant for those who are asymptotic, present tangible and intangible benefits and risks, as well as make a primary recommendation, and, if needed, a "compromise" recommendation, in order to increase screening utilization. Keywords

show abstract

“…Most of these studies were conducted in the USA or report insights relating to a range of screening methods including gFOBt, colonoscopy and FS. [44][45][46][47] This limits their applicability to the UK NHS BCSP. The sparse literature focusing on gFOBt 33,42,[48][49][50][51][52] has identified reasons for non-uptake including feeling healthy and having no bowel symptoms, fear of the outcome of screening and 'not wanting to know', which was often linked to doubts about the value of screening to detect health problems.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Testing innovative strategies to reduce the social gradient in the uptake of bowel cancer screening: a programme of four qualitatively enhanced randomised controlled trials

Raine

Atkin

Wagner

et al. 2017

Programme Grants Appl Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective: To reduce socioeconomic inequalities in uptake of the NHS BCSP ’ s guaiac faecal occult blood test (gFOBt) without compromising uptake in any socioeconomic group. Design: Workstream 1 explored psychosocial determinants of non-uptake of gFOBt in focus groups and interviews. Workstream 2 developed and tested four theoretically based interventions: (1) ‘ gist ’ information, (2) a ‘ narrative ’ leaflet, (3) ‘ general practice endorsement ’ (GPE) and (4) an ‘ enhanced reminder ’ (ER). Workstream 3 comprised four national cluster randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of the cost-effectiveness of each intervention. Methods: Interventions were co-designed with user panels, user tested using interviews and focus groups, and piloted with postal questionnaires. RCTs compared ‘ usual care ’ (existing NHS BCSP invitations) with usual care plus each intervention. The four trials tested: (1) ‘ gist ’ leaflet ( n = 163,525), (2) ‘ narrative ’ leaflet ( n = 150,417), (3) GPE on the invitation letter ( n = 265,434) and (4) ER ( n = 168,480). Randomisation was based on day of mailing of the screening invitation. The Index of Multiple Deprivation (IMD) score associated with each individual ’ s home address was used as the marker of socioeconomic circumstances (SECs). Change in the socioeconomic gradient in uptake (interaction between treatment group and IMD quintile) was the primary outcome. Screening uptake was defined as the return of a gFOBt kit within 18 weeks of the invitation that led to a ‘ definitive ’ test result of either ‘ normal ’ (i.e. no further investigation required) or ‘ abnormal ’ (i.e. requiring referral for further testing). Difference in overall uptake was the secondary outcome. Results: The gist and narrative trials showed no effect on the SECs gradient or overall uptake (57.6% and 56.7%, respectively, compared with 57.3% and 58.5%, respectively, for usual care; all p -values > 0.05). GPE showed no effect on the gradient ( p = 0.5) but increased overall uptake [58.2% vs. 57.5% in usual care, odds ratio (OR) = 1.07, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.04 to 1.10; p < 0.0001]. ER showed a significant interaction with SECs ( p = 0.005), with a stronger effect in the most deprived IMD quintile (14.1% vs. 13.3% in usual care, OR = 1.11, 95% CI 1.04 to 1.20; p = 0.003) than the least deprived (34.7% vs. 34.9% in usual care OR = 1.00, 95% CI 0.94 to 1.06; p = 0.98), and higher overall uptake (25.8% vs. 25.1% in usual care, OR = 1.07, 95% CI 1.03 to 1.11; p = 0.001). All interventions were inexpensive to provide. Limitations: In line with NHS policy, the gist and narrative leaflets supplemented rather than replaced existing NHS BCSP information. This may have undermined their effect. Conclusions: Enhanced reminder reduced the gradient and modestly increased overall uptake, whereas GPE increased overall uptake but did not reduce the gradient. Therefore, given their effectiveness and very low cost, the findings suggest that implementation of both by the NHS BCSP would be beneficial. The gist and narrative results hig...

show abstract

“Do We Really Need All That Equipment?“: Factors Influencing Colorectal Cancer Screening Decisions

Cited by 26 publications

References 12 publications

Turkish Social Attitudes towards to Cancer Prevention: a Health Belief Model Study

Turkish Social Attitudes towards to Cancer Prevention: a Health Belief Model Study

Physician colorectal cancer screening recommendations: An examination based on informed decision making

Testing innovative strategies to reduce the social gradient in the uptake of bowel cancer screening: a programme of four qualitatively enhanced randomised controlled trials

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About