BACKGROUND: Relatives of colorectal cancer (CRC) patients are at increased risk of developing CRC themselves. Although this increased-risk group could benefit from screening, many do not undergo screening. Little is known about the reasons why this group chooses not to be screened, and understanding these reasons has implications for the development of tailored interventions. METHODS: Telephone interviews were conducted with 132 nonscreening relatives of CRC patients. Variables collected included reasons for not screening, intent to be screened in the future, potential prompts to future screening, and perceived benefits and barriers to screening as well as perceived CRC risk. RESULTS: We were able to categorize the majority of nonscreeners into four discrete types: a group who cite feeling healthy as their reason for not screening (n = 40), a group whose physicians have not endorsed screening (n = 18), a younger group who were told to wait to be screened (n = 21), and a group who anticipate discomfort and pain with screening (n = 20). CONCLUSIONS: It is possible to identify distinct groups of nonscreeners according to their particular barriers and reasons for not screening. Tailored interventions can be designed to address the specific issues in each of these groups.
BACKGROUND: Relatives of colorectal cancer (CRC) patients are at increased risk of developing CRC themselves. Although this increased-risk group could benefit from screening, many do not undergo screening. Little is known about the reasons why this group chooses not to be screened, and understanding these reasons has implications for the development of tailored interventions. METHODS: Telephone interviews were conducted with 132 nonscreening relatives of CRCpatients. Variables collected included reasons for not screening, intent to be screened in the future, potential prompts to future screening, and perceived benefits and barriers to screening as well as perceived CRC risk. RESULTS: We were able to categorize the majority of nonscreeners into four discrete types: a group who cite feeling healthy as their reason for not screening (n = 40), a group whose physicians have not endorsed screening (n = 18), a younger group who were told to wait to be screened (n = 21), and a group who anticipate discomfort and pain with screening (n = 20). CONCLUSIONS: It is possible to identify distinct groups of nonscreeners according to their particular barriers and reasons for not screening. Tailored interventions can be designed to address the specific issues in each of these groups.
Authors: Sharon L Manne; Elliot J Coups; Gary Winkel; Arnold Markowitz; Neal J Meropol; Samuel M Lesko; Paul B Jacobsen; Daniel Haller; Lina Jandorf; Susan K Peterson Journal: Health Educ Res Date: 2009-08-04
Authors: H Rothenmund; H Singh; B Candas; B N Chodirker; K Serfas; M Aronson; S Holter; A Volenik; J Green; E Dicks; M O Woods; D Gilchrist; R Gryfe; Z Cohen; W D Foulkes Journal: Curr Oncol Date: 2013-10 Impact factor: 3.677
Authors: Jan T Lowery; Dennis J Ahnen; Paul C Schroy; Heather Hampel; Nancy Baxter; C Richard Boland; Randall W Burt; Lynn Butterly; Megan Doerr; Mary Doroshenk; W Gregory Feero; Nora Henrikson; Uri Ladabaum; David Lieberman; Elizabeth G McFarland; Susan K Peterson; Martha Raymond; N Jewel Samadder; Sapna Syngal; Thomas K Weber; Ann G Zauber; Robert Smith Journal: Cancer Date: 2016-06-03 Impact factor: 6.860
Authors: Sharon L Manne; Elliot J Coups; Arnold Markowitz; Neal J Meropol; Daniel Haller; Paul B Jacobsen; Lina Jandorf; Susan K Peterson; Samuel Lesko; Steven Pilipshen; Gary Winkel Journal: Ann Behav Med Date: 2009-04