Literature DB >> 19826409

Comparing different strategies for colorectal cancer screening in Italy: predictors of patients' participation.

Carlo Senore1, Paola Armaroli, Marco Silvani, Bruno Andreoni, Luigi Bisanti, Luisa Marai, Guido Castiglione, Grazia Grazzini, Serena Taddei, Stefano Gasperoni, Orietta Giuliani, Giuseppe Malfitana, Anna Marutti, Giovanna Genta, Nereo Segnan.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVES: The objective of this study was to study predictors of patients' participation in colorectal cancer (CRC) screening.
METHODS: Men and women, aged 55-64 years, were randomized to the following: (i) biennial fecal occult blood test (FOBT) delivered by mail (n=2,266); (ii) FOBT delivered by a general practitioner (GP)/screening facility (n=5,893); (iii) "once-only" sigmoidoscopy (FS) (n=3,650); (iv) FS followed by FOBT for screenees with negative FS (n=10,867); and (v) patient's choice between FS and FOBT (n=3,579). A stratified (by screening arm) random sample of attenders and nonattenders was contacted by trained interviewers 4 months after the initial invitation. Subjects giving their consent were administered a questionnaire (available online) investigating perceptions of individual CRC risk, attitudes toward prevention, adoption of health protective behaviors, and reasons for attendance/nonattendance. Adjusted prevalence odds ratios (ORs) were computed by multivariable logistic regression.
RESULTS: The response rate was 71.9% (701 of 975) among nonattenders and 88.9% (773 of 870) among attenders. Adjusting for screening arm, center, gender, age, and education, participation was significantly higher among people who consulted their GP before undergoing screening (OR: 4.24; 95% confidence interval (CI): 3.11-5.78), who mentioned one first-degree relative with CRC (OR: 3.62; 95% CI: 2.02-6.49), who reported regular physical activity (OR: 1.85; 95% CI: 1.33-2.55), and who read the mailed information (letter only: OR: 1.85; 95% CI: 1.23-2.78; letter+leaflet: OR: 3.18; 95% CI: 2.12-4.76). People who considered screening to be ineffective (OR: 0.12; 95% CI: 0.08-0.19), those who considered it to be effective but reported even moderate levels of anxiety (OR: 0.32; 95% CI: 0.23-0.45), and those who mentioned previous knowledge of CRC screening tests were less likely to accept the invitation (OR: 0.49; 95% CI: 0.34-0.70).
CONCLUSIONS: Adoption of health protective behaviors is associated with a higher attendance rate, whereas anxiety represents a strong barrier, even among people who deemed screening to be effective. Increasing the proportion of people who consult their GP when making a decision regarding screening might enhance participation.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2009        PMID: 19826409     DOI: 10.1038/ajg.2009.583

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Am J Gastroenterol        ISSN: 0002-9270            Impact factor:   10.864


  20 in total

1.  ColonCancerCheck primary care invitation pilot project: patient perceptions.

Authors:  Jill Tinmouth; Paul Ritvo; S Elizabeth McGregor; Jigisha Patel; Crissa Guglietti; Cheryl A Levitt; Lawrence F Paszat; Linda Rabeneck
Journal:  Can Fam Physician       Date:  2013-12       Impact factor: 3.275

2.  Predictors of compliance with free endoscopic colorectal cancer screening in uninsured adults.

Authors:  Joseph C Anderson; Richard H Fortinsky; Alison Kleppinger; Amanda B Merz-Beyus; Charles G Huntington; Suzanne Lagarde
Journal:  J Gen Intern Med       Date:  2011-04-16       Impact factor: 5.128

Review 3.  Screening for colorectal cancer using the faecal occult blood test, Hemoccult.

Authors:  P Hewitson; P Glasziou; L Irwig; B Towler; E Watson
Journal:  Cochrane Database Syst Rev       Date:  2007-01-24

4.  Design of wormlike automated robotic endoscope: dynamic interaction between endoscopic balloon and surrounding tissues.

Authors:  Carmen C Y Poon; Billy Leung; Cecilia K W Chan; James Y W Lau; Philip W Y Chiu
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  2015-05-28       Impact factor: 4.584

5.  A path for diagnosis and therapy of colon cancer: a continuous quality improvement.

Authors:  Jacopo Giuliani; Marina Marzola
Journal:  Chin J Cancer Res       Date:  2014-12       Impact factor: 5.087

Review 6.  Familial colorectal cancer screening: When and what to do?

Authors:  Giovanna Del Vecchio Blanco; Omero Alessandro Paoluzi; Pierpaolo Sileri; Piero Rossi; Giuseppe Sica; Francesco Pallone
Journal:  World J Gastroenterol       Date:  2015-07-14       Impact factor: 5.742

7.  Barriers to Colorectal Cancer Screening in a Primary Care Setting in Turkey.

Authors:  Mustafa Kursat Sahin; Servet Aker; Hatice Nilden Arslan
Journal:  J Community Health       Date:  2017-02

8.  Capsule colonoscopy increases uptake of colorectal cancer screening.

Authors:  Stefan Groth; Horst Krause; Rainer Behrendt; Helge Hill; Michael Börner; Murat Bastürk; Nora Plathner; Friedrich Schütte; Ulrich Gauger; Jürgen Ferdinand Riemann; Lutz Altenhofen; Thomas Rösch
Journal:  BMC Gastroenterol       Date:  2012-06-26       Impact factor: 3.067

9.  Primary care endorsement letter and a patient leaflet to improve participation in colorectal cancer screening: results of a factorial randomised trial.

Authors:  P Hewitson; A M Ward; C Heneghan; S P Halloran; D Mant
Journal:  Br J Cancer       Date:  2011-08-09       Impact factor: 7.640

10.  Nationwide bowel cancer screening programme in England: cohort study of lifestyle factors affecting participation and outcomes in women.

Authors:  R G Blanks; V S Benson; R Alison; A Brown; G K Reeves; V Beral; J Patnick; J Green
Journal:  Br J Cancer       Date:  2015-03-05       Impact factor: 7.640

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.