Decision-making in screening positive participants who follow up with colonoscopy in the Dutch colorectal cancer screening programme: A mixed-method study

Effects of a modified invitation letter to follow-up colonoscopy for bowel cancer detection

OBJECTIVE

To investigate whether modifications made to the current National Health Service (NHS) invitation letter for follow-up colonoscopy examination affect participant state anxiety and behavioural intentions to attend.

METHODS

Five hundred and thirty-eight adults of bowel cancer-eligible screening age (56-74) were randomized to receive the current NHS invitation letter or the modified version of the letter as a hypothetical scenario. Modifications to the letter included fewer uses of the term cancer and awareness of alternative screening options. The history of the colonoscopy invitation, anticipated state anxiety, behavioural intention to attend the nurse appointment, and colonoscopy concerns upon reading the letter were measured.

RESULTS

Behavioural intentions were high in both conditions; however, participants reading the current letter reported significantly higher behavioural intentions compared to the modified letter. There was no main effect of previous invite status or interaction between previous invite status and letter condition on behavioural intentions. However, the effect of the letter on levels of anxiety depended on the participant's invitation history. Those never invited for a colonoscopy were more anxious when reading the modified letter compared to the current letter. Conversely, previous colonoscopy invitees were less anxious following reading the modified letter than those reading the current letter. Those never invited for a colonoscopy were more concerned about embarrassment and test invasiveness. All findings remained the same when controlling for age and education.

CONCLUSION

Modifications to the invitation letter were not beneficial to levels of screening intention or anxiety.

Barriers and facilitators to colonoscopy for cancer detection: patient and practitioner perspectives

OBJECTIVE

To further understand the barriers and facilitators to attending colonoscopy examination following a positive routinely offered stool test result, from the perspective of patients and Specialist Screening Practitioners (SSPs).

METHODS

Qualitative semi-structured interviews were conducted. Participants (N = 32) were patients (n = 20) who, as part of the Bowel Cancer Screening Programme (BCSP) in England, were invited to attend a colonoscopy examination, and SSPs (n = 12), who worked for the BCSP in England. Framework analysis included inductive and deductive coding.

RESULTS

Anxiety was as a key barrier cited by patients and SSPs, arising from the moment the patient received the invitation letter. Notably, procedural-related anxieties centred upon the fear of pain and discomfort and test invasiveness. The role of family, friends and the SSP were recognised by patients and SSPs to facilitate participation. Many patients, yet not SSPs, emphasised an obligation to attend all medical test invitations.

CONCLUSION

Practically orientated strategies suggested by patients and SSPs address the patient barriers identified. These include earlier information to patients on the option of sedation for pain relief, earlier notification of potential financial support for patients unable to fund their own travel costs, and fewer uses of the term cancer within written materials.

Barriers Associated with Inadequate Follow-up of Abnormal Fecal Immunochemical Test Results in a Safety-Net System: A Mixed-Methods Analysis

•

Less than 50% of patients with an abnormal FIT result had a documented reason.

•

Patient-level (e.g., declined colonoscopy) reasons were most frequently documented.

•

Interviews revealed discordance in documented and patient-reported reasons.

•

Mixed-methods analyses are needed to improve colonoscopy after abnormal FIT results.

In safety-net healthcare systems, colonoscopy completion within 1-year of an abnormal fecal immunochemical test (FIT) result rarely exceeds 50%. Understanding how electronic health records (EHR) documented reasons for missed colonoscopy match or differ from patient-reported reasons, is critical to optimize effective interventions to address this challenge. We conducted a convergent mixed-methods study which included a retrospective analysis of EHR data and semi-structured interviews of adults 50–75 years old, with abnormal FIT results between 2014 and 2020 in a large safety-net healthcare system. Of the 299 patients identified, 59.2% (n = 177) did not complete a colonoscopy within one year of their abnormal result. EHR abstraction revealed a documented reason for lack of follow-up colonoscopy in 49.2% (n = 87/177); patient-level (e.g., declined colonoscopy; 51.5%) and multi-factorial reasons (e.g., lost to follow-up; 37.9%) were most common. In 18 patient interviews, patient (e.g., fear of colonoscopy), provider (e.g., lack of result awareness), and system-level reasons (e.g., scheduling challenges) were most common. Only three reasons for lack of colonoscopy overlapped between EHR data and patient interviews (competing health issues, lack of transportation, and abnormal FIT result attributed to another cause). In a cohort of safety-net patients with abnormal FIT results, the most common reasons for lack of follow-up were patient-related. Our analysis revealed a discordance between EHR documented and patient-reported reasons for lack of colonoscopy after an abnormal FIT result. Mixed-methods analyses, as in the present study, may give us the greatest insight into modifiable determinants to develop effective interventions beyond quantitative and qualitative data analysis alone.