OBJECTIVE: To obtain data that could be used to optimize the content and design of the targeted, mailed invitations that Ontario's provincewide colorectal cancer (CRC) screening program plans to use to increase screening uptake; to identify other strategies to increase CRC screening uptake; and to describe the effects of this qualitative work on a subsequent quantitative pilot study. DESIGN: Qualitative study using semistructured focus groups. SETTING: Four different Ontario communities. PARTICIPANTS: Six focus groups comprising a total of 62 participants. METHODS: Six focus groups were conducted in 4 different Ontario communities. For 3 of the communities, participants were recruited from the general population by a private marketing firm, using random-digit dialing, and received a small honorarium for participating. In Sault Ste Marie, participants were convenience samples recruited from a large primary care practice and were not offered compensation. Responses were elicited regarding various strategies for promoting CRC screening. Findings represent all responses observed as well as recommendations to program planners based on focus groups observations. MAIN FINDINGS: Key themes identified included the importance of receiving a CRC screening invitation from one's family physician; a desire for personalized, brief communications; and a preference for succinct information in mailed materials. Strong support was indicated for direct mailing of the CRC screening kit (fecal occult blood test). Our findings substantially influenced the final design and content of the envelope and letter to be mailed in the subsequent quantitative pilot study. CONCLUSION: We report strong support from our focus groups for a succinct, personalized invitation for CRC screening from one's own family physician. We have also shown that qualitative evaluation can be used to provide decision makers with pertinent and timely knowledge. Our study is highly relevant to other public health programs, particularly other Canadian jurisdictions planning organized CRC screening programs.
OBJECTIVE: To obtain data that could be used to optimize the content and design of the targeted, mailed invitations that Ontario's provincewide colorectal cancer (CRC) screening program plans to use to increase screening uptake; to identify other strategies to increase CRC screening uptake; and to describe the effects of this qualitative work on a subsequent quantitative pilot study. DESIGN: Qualitative study using semistructured focus groups. SETTING: Four different Ontario communities. PARTICIPANTS: Six focus groups comprising a total of 62 participants. METHODS: Six focus groups were conducted in 4 different Ontario communities. For 3 of the communities, participants were recruited from the general population by a private marketing firm, using random-digit dialing, and received a small honorarium for participating. In Sault Ste Marie, participants were convenience samples recruited from a large primary care practice and were not offered compensation. Responses were elicited regarding various strategies for promoting CRC screening. Findings represent all responses observed as well as recommendations to program planners based on focus groups observations. MAIN FINDINGS: Key themes identified included the importance of receiving a CRC screening invitation from one's family physician; a desire for personalized, brief communications; and a preference for succinct information in mailed materials. Strong support was indicated for direct mailing of the CRC screening kit (fecal occult blood test). Our findings substantially influenced the final design and content of the envelope and letter to be mailed in the subsequent quantitative pilot study. CONCLUSION: We report strong support from our focus groups for a succinct, personalized invitation for CRC screening from one's own family physician. We have also shown that qualitative evaluation can be used to provide decision makers with pertinent and timely knowledge. Our study is highly relevant to other public health programs, particularly other Canadian jurisdictions planning organized CRC screening programs.
Authors: J S Mandel; T R Church; J H Bond; F Ederer; M S Geisser; S J Mongin; D C Snover; L M Schuman Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2000-11-30 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: J D Hardcastle; J O Chamberlain; M H Robinson; S M Moss; S S Amar; T W Balfour; P D James; C M Mangham Journal: Lancet Date: 1996-11-30 Impact factor: 79.321
Authors: Kelly K Anderson; Rolf J Sebaldt; Lynne Lohfeld; Tina Karwalajtys; Afisi S Ismaila; Ron Goeree; Faith C Donald; Ken Burgess; Janusz Kaczorowski Journal: Can J Public Health Date: 2008 Mar-Apr
Authors: Roy C Baron; Barbara K Rimer; Rosalind A Breslow; Ralph J Coates; Jon Kerner; Stephanie Melillo; Nancy Habarta; Geetika P Kalra; Sajal Chattopadhyay; Katherine M Wilson; Nancy C Lee; Patricia Dolan Mullen; Steven S Coughlin; Peter A Briss Journal: Am J Prev Med Date: 2008-07 Impact factor: 5.043
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
Authors: S Elizabeth McGregor; Paul Ritvo; Jill Tinmouth; Ashley Kornblum; Ronald Myers; Robert J Hilsden; Lawrence F Paszat; Linda Rabeneck Journal: Can J Gastroenterol Date: 2011-05 Impact factor: 3.522
Authors: Jill Tinmouth; Paul Ritvo; S Elizabeth McGregor; Criss Guglietti; Josh Green; Danielle Claus; Cheryl Levitt; Lawrence F Paszat; Linda Rabeneck Journal: Can Fam Physician Date: 2012-10 Impact factor: 3.275
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
Authors: Alan White; Lucy Ironmonger; Robert J C Steele; Nick Ormiston-Smith; Carina Crawford; Amanda Seims Journal: BMC Cancer Date: 2018-09-20 Impact factor: 4.430