Literature DB >> 22705250

Public perceptions and preferences for CT colonography or colonoscopy in colorectal cancer screening.

Alex Ghanouni1, Samuel G Smith, Steve Halligan, Andrew Plumb, Darren Boone, Molly Sweeney Magee, Jane Wardle, Christian von Wagner.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVES: To examine public perceptions of and preferences for colonoscopy vs. CT colonography (CTC) as technologies for colorectal cancer (CRC) screening.
METHODS: Six discussion groups were carried out with 30 adults aged 49-60 years (60% female). Information about different aspects of the tests (e.g. sensitivity, practical issues) was presented sequentially using a semi-structured, step-by-step topic guide. Discussions were recorded and analyzed using framework analysis.
RESULTS: CTC was favored on the parameters of invasiveness, extra-colonic evaluation and interference with daily life, whereas sensitivity, avoiding false-positives and the capacity to remove polyps immediately were perceived to be important advantages of colonoscopy. Ultimately, there was no strong preference for either test: with 46% preferring colonoscopy vs. 42% for CTC.
CONCLUSION: With comprehensive information, colonoscopy and CTC were seen as having different advantages and disadvantages, yielding no clear preferences between the two. The sensitivity of colonoscopy was a decisive factor for some people, but the lower invasiveness of CTC was seen as an asset in the screening context. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: CTC may be an acceptable alternative to colonoscopy in CRC screening. Healthcare professionals working in the screening context should be sensitive to the range of characteristics that can determine preferences for CRC screening tests.
Copyright © 2012 Elsevier Ireland Ltd. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2012        PMID: 22705250     DOI: 10.1016/j.pec.2012.05.007

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Patient Educ Couns        ISSN: 0738-3991


  7 in total

1.  Colorectal Cancer Screening Preferences among Black and Latino Primary Care Patients.

Authors:  Sumedha V Chablani; Noah Cohen; Drusilla White; Steven H Itzkowitz; Katherine DuHamel; Lina Jandorf
Journal:  J Immigr Minor Health       Date:  2017-10

2.  Insurance Coverage for CT Colonography Screening: Impact on Overall Colorectal Cancer Screening Rates.

Authors:  Maureen A Smith; Jennifer M Weiss; Aaron Potvien; Jessica R Schumacher; Ronald E Gangnon; David H Kim; Lauren A Weeth-Feinstein; Perry J Pickhardt
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  2017-07-11       Impact factor: 11.105

3.  Bowel preparation in CT colonography: Is diet restriction necessary? A randomised trial (DIETSAN).

Authors:  Davide Bellini; Domenico De Santis; Damiano Caruso; Marco Rengo; Riccardo Ferrari; Tommaso Biondi; Andrea Laghi
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2017-08-10       Impact factor: 5.315

4.  Pilot study on efficacy of reduced cathartic bowel preparation with polyethylene glycol and bisacodyl.

Authors:  Zhi-Yuan Chen; He-Song Shen; Ming-Yue Luo; Chai-Jie Duan; Wen-Li Cai; Hong-Bing Lu; Guo-Peng Zhang; Yang Liu; Jerome Z Liang
Journal:  World J Gastroenterol       Date:  2013-01-28       Impact factor: 5.742

5.  Comparison of the participation rate between CT colonography and colonoscopy in screening population: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.

Authors:  He Zhu; Fudong Li; Ke Tao; Jing Wang; Carissa Scurlock; Xiaofei Zhang; Hong Xu
Journal:  Br J Radiol       Date:  2019-11-01       Impact factor: 3.039

6.  Women's responses to information about overdiagnosis in the UK breast cancer screening programme: a qualitative study.

Authors:  Jo Waller; Elaine Douglas; Katriina L Whitaker; Jane Wardle
Journal:  BMJ Open       Date:  2013-04-22       Impact factor: 2.692

7.  Patients' & healthcare professionals' values regarding true- & false-positive diagnosis when colorectal cancer screening by CT colonography: discrete choice experiment.

Authors:  Darren Boone; Susan Mallett; Shihua Zhu; Guiqing Lily Yao; Nichola Bell; Alex Ghanouni; Christian von Wagner; Stuart A Taylor; Douglas G Altman; Richard Lilford; Steve Halligan
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2013-12-09       Impact factor: 3.240

  7 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.