Siu Hing Lo1, Jo Waller1, Charlotte Vrinten1, Jane Wardle1, Christian von Wagner2. 1. Cancer Research UK Health Behaviour Research Centre, Department of Epidemiology and Public Health, University College London, Gower Street, London WC1E 6BT. 2. Cancer Research UK Health Behaviour Research Centre, Department of Epidemiology and Public Health, University College London, Gower Street, London WC1E 6BT c.wagner@ucl.ac.uk.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To compare self-reported with objectively recorded participation in Faecal Occult Blood testing (FOBt) colorectal cancer (CRC) screening in a national programme. METHODS: Survey respondents living in England who were eligible for screening were asked in face-to-face interviews if they had ever been invited to do a CRC screening test, how many times they had been invited, and how many times they had participated. National Health Service (NHS) Bowel Cancer Screening Programme (BCSP) records were consulted for respondents who had consented to a record check. The outcome measures were 'ever uptake' (responded to ≥1 invitation), 'repeat uptake' (responded to ≥2 invitations), and 'consistent uptake' (responded to all invitations). RESULTS: In the verified group, self-reported ever uptake was highly consistent with recorded ever uptake (87.0% vs. 87.8%). Among those who indicated that they had been invited more than once, self-reported repeat uptake was 89.8% compared with 84.8% recorded repeat uptake. Among those with more than one recorded invitation, self-reported repeat uptake was 72.7% compared with 77.2% recorded repeat uptake, and self-reported consistent uptake was 81.6% compared with 65.6% recorded consistent uptake. CONCLUSION: Our results suggest that people can accurately report whether they have ever taken part in CRC screening. The vast majority of those whose records were verified could also accurately report whether they had taken part in screening at least twice. They were somewhat less accurate in reporting whether they had responded to all screening invitations.
OBJECTIVE: To compare self-reported with objectively recorded participation in Faecal Occult Blood testing (FOBt) colorectal cancer (CRC) screening in a national programme. METHODS: Survey respondents living in England who were eligible for screening were asked in face-to-face interviews if they had ever been invited to do a CRC screening test, how many times they had been invited, and how many times they had participated. National Health Service (NHS) Bowel Cancer Screening Programme (BCSP) records were consulted for respondents who had consented to a record check. The outcome measures were 'ever uptake' (responded to ≥1 invitation), 'repeat uptake' (responded to ≥2 invitations), and 'consistent uptake' (responded to all invitations). RESULTS: In the verified group, self-reported ever uptake was highly consistent with recorded ever uptake (87.0% vs. 87.8%). Among those who indicated that they had been invited more than once, self-reported repeat uptake was 89.8% compared with 84.8% recorded repeat uptake. Among those with more than one recorded invitation, self-reported repeat uptake was 72.7% compared with 77.2% recorded repeat uptake, and self-reported consistent uptake was 81.6% compared with 65.6% recorded consistent uptake. CONCLUSION: Our results suggest that people can accurately report whether they have ever taken part in CRC screening. The vast majority of those whose records were verified could also accurately report whether they had taken part in screening at least twice. They were somewhat less accurate in reporting whether they had responded to all screening invitations.
Authors: Sally W Vernon; Peter N Abotchie; Amy McQueen; Arica White; Jan M Eberth; Sharon P Coan Journal: Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev Date: 2011-12-05 Impact factor: 4.254
Authors: Tibor Wittmann; Reinhold Stockbrugger; László Herszényi; Daisy Jonkers; Béla Molnár; Jean-Christophe Saurin; Jaroslaw Regula; Alberto Malesci; Luigi Laghi; Tamás Pintér; Béla Teleky; Petr Dítě; Zsolt Tulassay Journal: Dig Dis Date: 2012-06-20 Impact factor: 2.404
Authors: Garth H Rauscher; Timothy P Johnson; Young Ik Cho; Jennifer A Walk Journal: Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev Date: 2008-04-01 Impact factor: 4.254
Authors: Timothy J Beebe; Jeanette Y Ziegenfuss; Sarah M Jenkins; Kandace A Lackore; Timothy P Johnson Journal: BMC Med Res Methodol Date: 2014-02-05 Impact factor: 4.615
Authors: Siu Hing Lo; Stephen Halloran; Julia Snowball; Helen Seaman; Jane Wardle; Christian von Wagner Journal: Gut Date: 2014-05-07 Impact factor: 23.059
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: Darren S Thomas; Aleksandra Gentry-Maharaj; Andy Ryan; Evangelia-Ourania Fourkala; Sophia Apostolidou; Matthew Burnell; Wendy Alderton; Julie Barnes; John F Timms; Usha Menon Journal: Cancer Epidemiol Date: 2019-01-04 Impact factor: 2.984
Authors: Charlotte Vrinten; Sandro Stoffel; Rachael H Dodd; Jo Waller; Yoryos Lyratzopoulos; Christian von Wagner Journal: J Med Screen Date: 2019-05-01 Impact factor: 2.136