Literature DB >> 16911554

Screening for colorectal cancer by faecal occult blood test: why people choose to refuse.

D L Worthley1, S R Cole, A Esterman, S Mehaffey, N M Roosa, A Smith, D Turnbull, G P Young.   

Abstract

To better understand the personal barriers that limit participation in faecal occult blood test (FOBT) screening for colorectal cancer, non-participants from a recent screening initiative were sent detailed questionnaires, defining their reasons for not participating, as well as how to make screening more attractive. The important barrier was procrastination. The type of FOBT kit offered influenced the reasons for not participating. Convenient FOBT and greater general practitioner involvement may be important for optimizing community acceptance of FOBT-based screening.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2006        PMID: 16911554     DOI: 10.1111/j.1445-5994.2006.01155.x

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Intern Med J        ISSN: 1444-0903            Impact factor:   2.048


  20 in total

1.  Reasons for non-response to a direct-mailed FIT kit program: lessons learned from a pragmatic colorectal-cancer screening study in a federally sponsored health center.

Authors:  Gloria D Coronado; Jennifer L Schneider; Jennifer J Sanchez; Amanda F Petrik; Beverly Green
Journal:  Transl Behav Med       Date:  2015-03       Impact factor: 3.046

2.  Perception of Colorectal Cancer Risk does not Enhance Participation in Screening.

Authors:  Keith Dear; Leitha Scott; Sharon Chambers; Mike C Corbett; Doug Taupin
Journal:  Therap Adv Gastroenterol       Date:  2008-11       Impact factor: 4.409

3.  Patient activation increases colorectal cancer screening rates: a randomized trial among low-income minority patients.

Authors:  Mira L Katz; James L Fisher; Kelly Fleming; Electra D Paskett
Journal:  Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev       Date:  2011-11-08       Impact factor: 4.254

4.  Psychosocial variables associated with colorectal cancer screening in South Australia.

Authors:  Stephen R Cole; Ian Zajac; Tess Gregory; Sarah Mehaffey; Naomi Roosa; Deborah Turnbull; Adrian Esterman; Graeme P Young
Journal:  Int J Behav Med       Date:  2011-12

5.  Exploring the validity of the continuum of resistance model for discriminating early from late and non-uptake of colorectal cancer screening: implications for the design of invitation and reminder letters.

Authors:  Tess Gregory; Stephen R Cole; Carlene J Wilson; Ingrid H Flight; Ian T Zajac; Deborah Turnbull; Graeme P Young
Journal:  Int J Behav Med       Date:  2013-12

6.  Avoiding cancer risk information.

Authors:  Amber S Emanuel; Marc T Kiviniemi; Jennifer L Howell; Jennifer L Hay; Erika A Waters; Heather Orom; James A Shepperd
Journal:  Soc Sci Med       Date:  2015-10-27       Impact factor: 4.634

7.  Exploring perceptions of colorectal cancer and fecal immunochemical testing among African Americans in a North Carolina community.

Authors:  Elizabeth Harden; Alexis Moore; Cathy Melvin
Journal:  Prev Chronic Dis       Date:  2011-10-17       Impact factor: 2.830

8.  Detection of cell-free microbial DNA using a contaminant-controlled analysis framework.

Authors:  Enrique Zozaya-Valdés; Stephen Q Wong; Jeanette Raleigh; Athena Hatzimihalis; Sarah Ftouni; Anthony T Papenfuss; Shahneen Sandhu; Mark A Dawson; Sarah-Jane Dawson
Journal:  Genome Biol       Date:  2021-06-23       Impact factor: 13.583

9.  The effect of deadlines on cancer screening completion: a randomized controlled trial.

Authors:  Alicea Lieberman; Ayelet Gneezy; Emily Berry; Stacie Miller; Mark Koch; Keith E Argenbright; Samir Gupta
Journal:  Sci Rep       Date:  2021-07-06       Impact factor: 4.379

10.  Blood RNA biomarker panel detects both left- and right-sided colorectal neoplasms: a case-control study.

Authors:  Samuel Chao; Jay Ying; Gailina Liew; Wayne Marshall; Choong-Chin Liew; Robert Burakoff
Journal:  J Exp Clin Cancer Res       Date:  2013-07-23
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.