Literature DB >> 31879320

Why colorectal screening fails to achieve the uptake rates of breast and cervical cancer screening: a comparative qualitative study.

Marie Kotzur1, Colin McCowan2, Sara Macdonald1, Sally Wyke1, Lauren Gatting1, Christine Campbell3, David Weller4, Emilia Crighton5, Robert J C Steele6, Kathryn A Robb7.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: In Scotland, the uptake of clinic-based breast (72%) and cervical (77%) screening is higher than home-based colorectal screening (~60%). To inform new approaches to increase uptake of colorectal screening, we compared the perceptions of colorectal screening among women with different screening histories.
METHODS: We purposively sampled women with different screening histories to invite to semistructured interviews: (1) participated in all; (2) participated in breast and cervical but not colorectal ('colorectal-specific non-participants'); (3) participated in none. To identify the sample we linked the data for all women eligible for all three screening programmes in Glasgow, Scotland (aged 51-64 years; n=68 324). Interviews covered perceptions of cancer, screening and screening decisions. Framework method was used for analysis.
RESULTS: Of the 2924 women invited, 86 expressed an interest, and 59 were interviewed. The three groups' perceptions differed, with the colorectal-specific non-participants expressing that: (1) treatment for colorectal cancer is more severe than for breast or cervical cancer; (2) colorectal symptoms are easier to self-detect than breast or cervical symptoms; (3) they worried about completing the test incorrectly; and (4) the colorectal test could be more easily delayed or forgotten than breast or cervical screening.
CONCLUSION: Our comparative approach suggested targets for future interventions to increase colorectal screening uptake including: (1) reducing fear of colorectal cancer treatments; (2) increasing awareness that screening is for the asymptomatic; (3) increasing confidence to self-complete the test; and (4) providing a suggested deadline and/or additional reminders. © Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2020. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.

Entities:  

Keywords:  decision making; health policy; human factors; qualitative research

Mesh:

Year:  2019        PMID: 31879320     DOI: 10.1136/bmjqs-2019-009998

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  BMJ Qual Saf        ISSN: 2044-5415            Impact factor:   7.035


  4 in total

1.  Qualitative evaluation of a codesigned faith-based intervention for Muslim women in Scotland to encourage uptake of breast, colorectal and cervical cancer screening.

Authors:  Floor Christie-de Jong; Marie Kotzur; Rana Amiri; Jonathan Ling; John D Mooney; Kathryn A Robb
Journal:  BMJ Open       Date:  2022-05-13       Impact factor: 3.006

2.  Sociodemographic correlates of colorectal cancer screening completion among women adherent to mammography screening guidelines by place of birth.

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

Review 3.  Factors promoting breast, cervical and colorectal cancer screenings participation: A systematic review.

Authors:  Federica Vallone; Daniela Lemmo; Maria Luisa Martino; Anna Rosa Donizzetti; Maria Francesca Freda; Francesco Palumbo; Elvira Lorenzo; Angelo D'Argenzio; Daniela Caso
Journal:  Psychooncology       Date:  2022-07-12       Impact factor: 3.955

4.  The integrated screening action model (I-SAM): A theory-based approach to inform intervention development.

Authors:  Kathryn A Robb
Journal:  Prev Med Rep       Date:  2021-05-31
  4 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.