INTRODUCTION: Uptake is an important determinant of the effectiveness of population-based screening. Uptake of colorectal cancer (CRC) screening generally remains sub-optimal. AIM: To determine factors influencing the decision whether to participate or not among individuals invited for faecal occult blood test (FOBT) or flexible sigmoidoscopy (FS) screening. METHODS: A questionnaire was sent to a stratified random sample of individuals aged 50-74, previously invited for a randomised CRC screening trial offering FOBT or FS, and a reference group from the same population not previously invited (screening naïve group). The questionnaire assessed reasons for (non)-participation, individuals' characteristics associated with participation, knowledge, attitudes and level of informed choice. RESULTS: The response rate was 75% (n=341/452) for CRC screening participants, 21% (n=676/3212) for non-participants and 38% (n=192/500) for screening-naïve individuals. The main reasons for FOBT and FS participation were acquiring certainty about CRC presence and possible early CRC detection. Anticipated regret and positive attitudes towards CRC screening were strong predictors of actual participation and intention to participate in a next round. The main reason for non-participation in FOBT screening was lack of abdominal complaints. Non-participation in FS screening was additionally influenced by worries about burden. Eighty-one percent of participants and 12% of non-participants made an informed choice on participation. CONCLUSION: Only 12% of non-participants made an informed choice not to participate. These results imply that governments and/or organizations offering screening should focus on adequately informing and educating target populations about the harms and benefits of CRC screening. This may impact uptake of CRC screening.
INTRODUCTION: Uptake is an important determinant of the effectiveness of population-based screening. Uptake of colorectal cancer (CRC) screening generally remains sub-optimal. AIM: To determine factors influencing the decision whether to participate or not among individuals invited for faecal occult blood test (FOBT) or flexible sigmoidoscopy (FS) screening. METHODS: A questionnaire was sent to a stratified random sample of individuals aged 50-74, previously invited for a randomised CRC screening trial offering FOBT or FS, and a reference group from the same population not previously invited (screening naïve group). The questionnaire assessed reasons for (non)-participation, individuals' characteristics associated with participation, knowledge, attitudes and level of informed choice. RESULTS: The response rate was 75% (n=341/452) for CRC screening participants, 21% (n=676/3212) for non-participants and 38% (n=192/500) for screening-naïve individuals. The main reasons for FOBT and FS participation were acquiring certainty about CRC presence and possible early CRC detection. Anticipated regret and positive attitudes towards CRC screening were strong predictors of actual participation and intention to participate in a next round. The main reason for non-participation in FOBT screening was lack of abdominal complaints. Non-participation in FS screening was additionally influenced by worries about burden. Eighty-one percent of participants and 12% of non-participants made an informed choice on participation. CONCLUSION: Only 12% of non-participants made an informed choice not to participate. These results imply that governments and/or organizations offering screening should focus on adequately informing and educating target populations about the harms and benefits of CRC screening. This may impact uptake of CRC screening.
Authors: M J Rothmann; S Möller; T Holmberg; M Højberg; J Gram; M Bech; K Brixen; A P Hermann; C-C Glüer; R Barkmann; K H Rubin Journal: Osteoporos Int Date: 2017-09-05 Impact factor: 4.507
Authors: Jada G Hamilton; Sarah E Lillie; Dana L Alden; Laura Scherer; Megan Oser; Christine Rini; Miho Tanaka; John Baleix; Mikki Brewster; Simon Craddock Lee; Mary K Goldstein; Robert M Jacobson; Ronald E Myers; Brian J Zikmund-Fisher; Erika A Waters Journal: J Behav Med Date: 2016-08-26
Authors: Lesley M McGregor; Christian von Wagner; Gemma Vart; Wing Chee Yuen; Rosalind Raine; Jane Wardle; Kathryn A Robb Journal: BMC Cancer Date: 2015-03-21 Impact factor: 4.430
Authors: Hye Young Shin; Mina Suh; Hyung Won Baik; Kui Son Choi; Boyoung Park; Jae Kwan Jun; Chan Wha Lee; Jae Hwan Oh; You Kyoung Lee; Dong Soo Han; Do-Hoon Lee Journal: Trials Date: 2014-11-26 Impact factor: 2.279