Literature DB >> 27216771

Patient factors associated with non-attendance at colonoscopy after a positive screening faecal occult blood test.

Andrew A Plumb1, Alex Ghanouni2, Sandra Rainbow3, Natasha Djedovic3, Sarah Marshall4, Judith Stein5, Stuart A Taylor1, Steve Halligan1, Georgios Lyratzopoulos2, Christian von Wagner2.   

Abstract

Background Screening participants with abnormal faecal occult blood test results who do not attend further testing are at high risk of colorectal cancer, yet little is known about their reasons for non-attendance. Methods We conducted a medical record review of 170 patients from two English Bowel Cancer Screening Programme centres who had abnormal guaiac faecal occult blood test screening tests between November 2011 and April 2013 but did not undergo colonoscopy. Using information from patient records, we coded and categorized reasons for non-attendance. Results Of the 170 patients, 82 were eligible for review, of whom 66 had at least one recorded reason for lack of colonoscopy follow-up. Reasons fell into seven main categories: (i) other commitments, (ii) unwillingness to have the test, (iii) a feeling that the faecal occult blood test result was a false positive, (iv) another health issue taking priority, (v) failing to complete bowel preparation, (vi) practical barriers (e.g. lack of transport), and (vii) having had or planning colonoscopy elsewhere. The most common single reasons were unwillingness to have a colonoscopy and being away. Conclusions We identify a range of apparent reasons for colonoscopy non-attendance after a positive faecal occult blood test screening. Education regarding the interpretation of guaiac faecal occult blood test findings, offer of alternative confirmatory test options, and flexibility in the timing or location of subsequent testing might decrease non-attendance of diagnostic testing following positive faecal occult blood test.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Colorectal cancer screening; case-note review; colonoscopy; non-attendance

Mesh:

Year:  2016        PMID: 27216771     DOI: 10.1177/0969141316645629

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Med Screen        ISSN: 0969-1413            Impact factor:   2.136


  18 in total

Review 1.  Data-Powered Participatory Decision Making: Leveraging Systems Thinking and Simulation to Guide Selection and Implementation of Evidence-Based Colorectal Cancer Screening Interventions.

Authors:  Stephanie B Wheeler; Jennifer Leeman; Kristen Hassmiller Lich; Florence K L Tangka; Melinda M Davis; Lisa C Richardson
Journal:  Cancer J       Date:  2018 May/Jun       Impact factor: 3.360

2.  Contribution of patient, physician, and environmental factors to demographic and health variation in colonoscopy follow-up for abnormal colorectal cancer screening test results.

Authors:  Melissa R Partin; Amy A Gravely; James F Burgess; David A Haggstrom; Sarah E Lillie; David B Nelson; Sean M Nugent; Aasma Shaukat; Shahnaz Sultan; Louise C Walter; Diana J Burgess
Journal:  Cancer       Date:  2017-05-11       Impact factor: 6.860

3.  Patient Navigation After Positive Fecal Immunochemical Test Results Increases Diagnostic Colonoscopy and Highlights Multilevel Barriers to Follow-Up.

Authors:  Vivy T Cusumano; Anthony Myint; Edgar Corona; Liu Yang; Jennifer Bocek; Antonio G Lopez; Marcela Zhou Huang; Naveen Raja; Anna Dermenchyan; Lily Roh; Maria Han; Daniel Croymans; Folasade P May
Journal:  Dig Dis Sci       Date:  2021-02-20       Impact factor: 3.199

4.  The Cancer Prevention and Control Research Network: Accelerating the implementation of evidence-based cancer prevention and control interventions.

Authors:  Jennifer Leeman; Karen Glanz; Peggy Hannon; Jackilen Shannon
Journal:  Prev Med       Date:  2019-11-11       Impact factor: 4.018

5.  Reasons For Lack of Follow-up Colonoscopy Among Persons With A Positive Fecal Occult Blood Test Result: A Qualitative Study.

Authors:  Diego Llovet; Mardie Serenity; Lesley Gotlib Conn; Caroline A Bravo; Bronwen R McCurdy; Catherine Dubé; Nancy N Baxter; Lawrence Paszat; Linda Rabeneck; Amanda Peters; Jill Tinmouth
Journal:  Am J Gastroenterol       Date:  2018-10-25       Impact factor: 10.864

6.  Preferences for different diagnostic modalities to follow up abnormal colorectal cancer screening results: a hypothetical vignette study.

Authors:  Aradhna Kaushal; Sandro Tiziano Stoffel; Robert Kerrison; Christian von Wagner
Journal:  BMJ Open       Date:  2020-07-26       Impact factor: 2.692

7.  Perceived patient burden and acceptability of whole body MRI for staging lung and colorectal cancer; comparison with standard staging investigations.

Authors:  Ruth Ec Evans; Stuart A Taylor; Sandra Beare; Steve Halligan; Alison Morton; Alf Oliver; Andrea Rockall; Anne Miles
Journal:  Br J Radiol       Date:  2018-03-20       Impact factor: 3.039

8.  Colorectal Cancer screening in ambulatory healthcare service clinics in Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates in 2015-2016.

Authors:  Aysha Almansoori; Mariam Alzaabi; Latifa Alketbi
Journal:  BMC Cancer       Date:  2021-08-06       Impact factor: 4.430

9.  Testing whether barriers to a hypothetical screening test affect unrelated perceived benefits and vice versa: A randomised, experimental study.

Authors:  Alex Ghanouni; Ella Nuttall; Jane Wardle; Christian von Wagner
Journal:  Patient Educ Couns       Date:  2016-09-17

10.  Barriers to bowel scope (flexible sigmoidoscopy) screening: a comparison of non-responders, active decliners and non-attenders.

Authors:  Christian von Wagner; Bernardette Bonello; Sandro Stoffel; Hanna Skrobanski; Madeleine Freeman; Robert S Kerrison; Lesley M McGregor
Journal:  BMC Public Health       Date:  2018-10-05       Impact factor: 3.295

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.