The view from two sides: a qualitative study of community and medical perspectives on screening for colorectal cancer using FOBT

Clavarino, Alexandra; Janda, Monika; Hughes, Karen; Mar, Chris Del; Tong, Shilu; Stanton, Warren R.; Aitken, Joanne F.; Leggett, Barbara A.; Newman, Beth

doi:10.1016/j.ypmed.2004.05.015

Cited by 27 publications

(44 citation statements)

References 37 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Other motivating factors were maintaining and being proactive about their health to live longer: (10,(55)(56)(57) "This is all related to being very conscious of the age that I'm at. .…”

Section: Results Of Meta-data Analysismentioning

confidence: 99%

Systematic Review and Meta-study Synthesis of Qualitative Studies Evaluating Facilitators and Barriers to Participation in Colorectal Cancer Screening

Honein-AbouHaidar

Kastner

Vuong

et al. 2016

Cancer Epidemiology, Biomarkers &Amp; Prevention

203

185

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Screening reduces the incidence, morbidity, and mortality of colorectal cancer, yet participation tends to be low. We undertook a systematic review and meta-study synthesis of qualitative studies to identify facilitators and barriers to colorectal cancer screening participation. We searched major bibliographic databases for records published in all languages from inception to February 2015. Included primary studies that elicited views and perceptions towards colorectal cancer screening were appraised for relevance and quality. We used a two-stage synthesis to create an interpretation of colorectal cancer screening decisions grounded in primary studies; a thematic analysis to group themes and systematically compare studies and a meta-synthesis to generate an expanded theory of colorectal cancer screening participation.Ninety-four studies were included. The decision to participate in colorectal cancer screening depended on an individual's awareness of colorectal cancer screening. Awareness affected views of cancer, attitudes towards colorectal cancer screening modalities, and motivation for screening. Factors mediating awareness included public education to address misconceptions, primary care physician efforts to recommend screening, and the influence of friends and family. Specific barriers to participation in populations with lower participation rates included language barriers, logistical challenges to attending screening tests, and cultural beliefs. This study identifies key barriers, facilitators, and mediators to colorectal cancer screening participation.Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev; 25(6); 907-17. Ó2016 AACR.

show abstract

“…Other motivating factors were maintaining and being proactive about their health to live longer: (10,(55)(56)(57) "This is all related to being very conscious of the age that I'm at. .…”

Section: Results Of Meta-data Analysismentioning

confidence: 99%

Systematic Review and Meta-study Synthesis of Qualitative Studies Evaluating Facilitators and Barriers to Participation in Colorectal Cancer Screening

Honein-AbouHaidar

Kastner

Vuong

et al. 2016

Cancer Epidemiology, Biomarkers &Amp; Prevention

203

185

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Participants mostly have FOBT (15%), colonoscopy (11.3%) and sigmoidoscopy (4.4%) respectively. Existing studies also reveal that the rate of participation of individuals over 50 to the colorectal cancer screening programs ranges from 1.5-78% (Clavarino et al, 2004;Dolan et al, 2005;van Dam et al, 2010;Koo et al, 2012;Messina et al, 2012). A study conducted in Turkey found that women mostly attend to breast cancer screening programs and that FOBT ration is 12% (Gulten et al, 2012).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Evaluation of the Knowledge, Behavior and Health Beliefs of Individuals over 50 Regarding Colorectal Cancer Screening

Taştan¹,

Andsoy²,

İyigün³

2013

Asian Pacific Journal of Cancer Prevention

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The aim of the study was to evaluate of the knowledge, behavior and health beliefs of individuals over 50 regarding colorectal cancer screening, with a descriptive and cross-sectional design at Karabuk Life and Health Center in Turkey. A total of 160 people meeting set criteria were included in the study. The questionnaire consisted of two parts. The first part was composed of questions on characteristics of participants and the second part of questions derived from the Champion's Health Belief Model Scale. Only 15.0% of participants (n=24) had undergone a fecal occult blood test (FOBT), 11.3% (n=18) had had colonoscopy and 4.4% (n=7) had had sigmoidoscopy. Some 90.6% of the participants had low levels of risk awareness about the colorectal cancer. It was found that the average point of severity subscale of participants over 65 is higher than that of participants under 65 (p<0.05). In conclusion, because of the many barriers and health beliefs for the colorectal cancer screening program, the rate of participation in screening programs is not sufficient. Healthcare providers have important responsibilities for increasing rate of attendance in colorectal cancer screening programs.

show abstract

“…We further identified the well-documented misconception that having no symptoms meant that screening was not needed. 44,47,49,50 Finally, we have identified the influence of talking with others as a tipping point to uptake of screening. We suggest that it is through talk that completion of a gFOBt kit may be 'reformed' as a normal and culturally appropriate activity, and that concerns about its unexpected and potentially inappropriate aspects may be alleviated.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…[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. Difficulties in understanding the kit instructions, concerns about hygiene and storage of the kit, avoiding or delaying decision-making, intention to take part but failure to do so owing to practicalities, and the preference for a doctor to do such tests have also been identified as reasons for not completing screening.…”

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

The view from two sides: a qualitative study of community and medical perspectives on screening for colorectal cancer using FOBT

Cited by 27 publications

References 37 publications

Systematic Review and Meta-study Synthesis of Qualitative Studies Evaluating Facilitators and Barriers to Participation in Colorectal Cancer Screening

Systematic Review and Meta-study Synthesis of Qualitative Studies Evaluating Facilitators and Barriers to Participation in Colorectal Cancer Screening

Evaluation of the Knowledge, Behavior and Health Beliefs of Individuals over 50 Regarding Colorectal Cancer Screening

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