INTRODUCTION: The effectiveness of colorectal cancer (CRC) screening programs depends on repeated participation. Little is known on later rounds in programs that use the fecal immunochemical test (FIT), in particular whether previous participants are likely to participate again, and if non-participants persist in declining. We compared overall participation in a second round to that in a first round, and evaluated differences in participation rates based on previous response. METHODS: Asymptomatic persons aged 50-74 years were invited to a second round of a FIT-based CRC screening pilot. We assessed the participation rate overall and within second round subgroups of previous participants, previous non-participants, and first time invitees. We also assessed whether participation rates were similar for males and females and for age groups. RESULTS: In the first screening round, 2871 of 5309 invitees returned the FIT (participation rate of 57%). This was higher than in the second in which 3187 of 5925 participated (54%; p = 0.0008). Second round participation rate was 85% (2034/2385) among previous participants, 18% (325/1826) among previous non-participants and 48% (828/1714) among first time invitees (p < .0001). Overall, males and persons aged under 55 were less likely to participate. CONCLUSIONS: Participation in a second round of FIT-screening was significantly lower than in the first round, largely due to a drop in participation in first round participants, and a relatively low response among first time invitees. This loss of uptake was partially compensated by a willingness to be screened in previous non-participants.
INTRODUCTION: The effectiveness of colorectal cancer (CRC) screening programs depends on repeated participation. Little is known on later rounds in programs that use the fecal immunochemical test (FIT), in particular whether previous participants are likely to participate again, and if non-participants persist in declining. We compared overall participation in a second round to that in a first round, and evaluated differences in participation rates based on previous response. METHODS: Asymptomatic persons aged 50-74 years were invited to a second round of a FIT-based CRC screening pilot. We assessed the participation rate overall and within second round subgroups of previous participants, previous non-participants, and first time invitees. We also assessed whether participation rates were similar for males and females and for age groups. RESULTS: In the first screening round, 2871 of 5309 invitees returned the FIT (participation rate of 57%). This was higher than in the second in which 3187 of 5925 participated (54%; p = 0.0008). Second round participation rate was 85% (2034/2385) among previous participants, 18% (325/1826) among previous non-participants and 48% (828/1714) among first time invitees (p < .0001). Overall, males and persons aged under 55 were less likely to participate. CONCLUSIONS: Participation in a second round of FIT-screening was significantly lower than in the first round, largely due to a drop in participation in first round participants, and a relatively low response among first time invitees. This loss of uptake was partially compensated by a willingness to be screened in previous non-participants.
Authors: Jennifer A Schlichting; Michelle A Mengeling; Nader M Makki; Ashish Malhotra; Thorvardur R Halfdanarson; J Stacey Klutts; Barcey T Levy; Peter J Kaboli; Mary E Charlton Journal: J Am Board Fam Med Date: 2015 Jul-Aug Impact factor: 2.657
Authors: Caitlin C Murphy; Ahana Sen; Bianca Watson; Samir Gupta; Helen Mayo; Amit G Singal Journal: Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev Date: 2019-11-18 Impact factor: 4.254
Authors: Carrie M Nielson; William M Vollmer; Amanda F Petrik; Erin M Keast; Beverly B Green; Gloria D Coronado Journal: J Gen Intern Med Date: 2019-01-25 Impact factor: 5.128
Authors: Amy Duncan; Deborah Turnbull; Carlene Wilson; Joanne M Osborne; Stephen R Cole; Ingrid Flight; Graeme P Young Journal: BMC Public Health Date: 2014-03-07 Impact factor: 3.295
Authors: Manon van der Vlugt; Esmée J Grobbee; Patrick Mm Bossuyt; Evelien Bongers; Wolfert Spijker; Ernst J Kuipers; Iris Lansdorp-Vogelaar; Marie-Louise Essink-Bot; Manon C W Spaander; Evelien Dekker Journal: Br J Cancer Date: 2016-12-06 Impact factor: 7.640
Authors: Louisa Flander; Evelien Dekker; Berit Andersen; Mette Bach Larsen; Robert J Steele; Nea Malila; Tytti Sarkeala; Manon van der Vlugt; Clasine de Klerk; Bart Knottnerus; Lucinda Bertels; Anke Woudstra; Manon C W Spaander; Mirjam Fransen; Sirpa Heinavaara; Mary Dillon; Driss Ait Ouakrim; Mark Jenkins Journal: Cancer Control Date: 2022 Jan-Dec Impact factor: 2.339
Authors: Marjolein J E Greuter; Johannes Berkhof; Karen Canfell; Jie-Bin Lew; Evelien Dekker; Veerle M H Coupé Journal: BMC Public Health Date: 2016-09-22 Impact factor: 3.295