Siu Hing Lo1, Jo Waller, Jane Wardle, Christian von Wagner. 1. PhD, Research Associate, Health Behaviour Research Centre, Department of Epidemiology and Public Health, University College London, Gower Street London, WC1E 6BT, UK.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Uptake of cancer screening tends to be lower for colorectal cancer (CRC) than cervical or breast cancer. Dislike of the test itself has often been identified as a barrier to CRC screening with the Faecal Occult Blood (FOB) test, but there have been no head-to-head comparisons of the three tests. METHODS: Women aged 50-80 (n = 890) were recruited in spring 2012 as part of a population-based TNS Research International survey in Great Britain. Those in the eligible age range were asked if they had ever participated in breast, cervical or CRC screening. For each screening test, women who had never participated were asked for their 'main reason' using a checklist of barriers. RESULTS: Among eligible women, 67%, 83% and 90% reported ever having been screened for CRC, cervical and breast cancer respectively. More socioeconomically deprived women were less likely to report any screening, and single women were less likely to report CRC or breast screening than married women. Age was not associated with participation. Overall there were few differences between tests in the reported barriers, but dislike of the test was endorsed more often for CRC screening. CONCLUSION: This was the first study to compare barriers to participation in organised screening programmes for CRC, breast and cervical cancer. Cancer screening tests share many barriers, but dislike of the test appears to be a stronger barrier to CRC screening. Women who are non-participants in more than one programme may have more global barriers to screening, such as cancer fatalism. The findings suggest that uptake of CRC screening could be improved by targeting the unpleasantness of stool sampling.
OBJECTIVE: Uptake of cancer screening tends to be lower for colorectal cancer (CRC) than cervical or breast cancer. Dislike of the test itself has often been identified as a barrier to CRC screening with the Faecal Occult Blood (FOB) test, but there have been no head-to-head comparisons of the three tests. METHODS: Women aged 50-80 (n = 890) were recruited in spring 2012 as part of a population-based TNS Research International survey in Great Britain. Those in the eligible age range were asked if they had ever participated in breast, cervical or CRC screening. For each screening test, women who had never participated were asked for their 'main reason' using a checklist of barriers. RESULTS: Among eligible women, 67%, 83% and 90% reported ever having been screened for CRC, cervical and breast cancer respectively. More socioeconomically deprived women were less likely to report any screening, and single women were less likely to report CRC or breast screening than married women. Age was not associated with participation. Overall there were few differences between tests in the reported barriers, but dislike of the test was endorsed more often for CRC screening. CONCLUSION: This was the first study to compare barriers to participation in organised screening programmes for CRC, breast and cervical cancer. Cancer screening tests share many barriers, but dislike of the test appears to be a stronger barrier to CRC screening. Women who are non-participants in more than one programme may have more global barriers to screening, such as cancer fatalism. The findings suggest that uptake of CRC screening could be improved by targeting the unpleasantness of stool sampling.
Authors: Anna Lucas-Wright; Mohsen Bazargan; Loretta Jones; Jaydutt V Vadgama; Roberto Vargas; Marianna Sarkissyan; James Smith; Hamed Yazdanshenas; Annette E Maxwell Journal: J Community Health Date: 2014-02
Authors: Hitomi Kariya; Diana S M Buist; Melissa L Anderson; John Lin; Hongyuan Gao; Linda K Ko; Rachel L Winer Journal: Prev Med Date: 2021-11-17 Impact factor: 4.018
Authors: Deeonna E Farr; Leslie E Cofie; Alison T Brenner; Ronny A Bell; Daniel S Reuland Journal: BMC Womens Health Date: 2022-04-21 Impact factor: 2.742
Authors: L Mead; L Porteous; M Tait; R Stoker; S Payne; C Calvert; D Maxwell; S V Katikireddi Journal: J Med Screen Date: 2015-03-09 Impact factor: 2.136
Authors: J Offman; M Wilson; M Lamont; H Birke; E Kutt; S Marriage; Y Loughrey; S Hudson; A Hartley; J Smith; B Eckersley; F Dungey; D Parmar; J Patnick; S W Duffy Journal: Br J Cancer Date: 2013-07-18 Impact factor: 7.640
Authors: Ronan E O'Carroll; Julie A Chambers; Linda Brownlee; Gillian Libby; Robert J C Steele Journal: Soc Sci Med Date: 2015-07-27 Impact factor: 4.634