The contribution of a negative colorectal screening test result to symptom appraisal and help-seeking behaviour among patients subsequently diagnosed with an interval colorectal cancer

Perceptions of the Impact of Comorbidity on the Bowel Cancer Screening Programme: Qualitative Study With Bowel Screening Participants and Staff

INTRODUCTION

The impact of multiple health conditions on bowel cancer screening is currently unknown. We explored the impact of multiple health conditions on bowel cancer screening perceptions, experience and clinical management decisions following a positive stool test.

METHODS

Semi-structured qualitative interviews were conducted remotely with Bowel Screening Wales staff (n = 16) stratified by regional location and role and with screening participants (n = 19) stratified by age, gender and comorbidity. Interview topics were guided by the Common-Sense Model.

RESULTS

Screening participants, regardless of comorbidity status, placed great emphasis on the importance of early detection of cancer and completing the bowel screening process. Screening staff emphasised comorbidities in the clinical decision-making process; however, screening participants had low awareness of the impact that comorbidities can have on bowel screening. Participants describe how the presence of multiple health conditions can mask potential bowel symptoms and influence beliefs about follow-up.

CONCLUSION

Bowel screening staff try to individualise the service to meet participant needs. The potential mismatch in screening staff and participant awareness and expectations of the bowel screening and diagnostic process needs to be addressed. Clearer and more regular communication with screening participants could support the screening process, particularly for those with significant coexisting health conditions or facing time delays. The possible masking effects and misattribution of symptoms because of comorbidities highlight an opportunity for education and raising awareness for screening participants and a potential area of focus for discussions in clinical consultations and staff training.

PATIENT AND PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION

Project funding included costs for patients and public contributors to be compensated for their contributions to the project, in line with current standards. A patient and public contributor was involved in the design of the study, including protocol development, and the interpretation of key findings and implications for patients, which are subsequently reflected within the manuscript.

Advice after urgent suspected cancer referral when cancer is not found in England: Survey of patients' preferences and perceived acceptability

Objective

No standardised approach exists to provide advice after urgent suspected cancer (USC) referral when cancer is not found. This study aimed to assess preferences and acceptability of receiving advice after USC referral related to: 1) managing ongoing symptoms, 2) responding to early symptoms of other cancers, 3) cancer screening, 4) reducing risks of future cancer.

Methods

2,541 patients from two English NHS Trusts were mailed a survey 1-3 months after having no cancer found following urgent suspected gastrointestinal or head and neck cancer referral. Participants were asked about: willingness to receive advice; prospective acceptability; preferences related to mode, timing and who should provide advice; and previous advice receipt.

Results

406 patients responded (16.0%) with 397 in the final analyses. Few participants had previously received advice, yet most were willing to. Willingness varied by type of advice: fewer were willing to receive advice about early symptoms of other cancers (88.9%) than advice related to ongoing symptoms (94.3%). Acceptability was relatively high for all advice types. Reducing the risk of future cancer advice was more acceptable. Acceptability was lower in those from ethnic minority groups, and with lower levels of education. Most participants preferred to receive advice from a doctor; with results or soon after; either face to face or via the telephone.

Conclusions

There is a potential unmet need for advice after USC referral when no cancer is found. Equitable intervention design should focus on increasing acceptability for people from ethnic minority groups and those with lower levels of education.

"Notification! You May Have Cancer." Could Smartphones and Wearables Help Detect Cancer Early?

This viewpoint paper considers the authors' perspectives on the potential role of smartphones, wearables, and other technologies in the diagnosis of cancer. We believe that these technologies could be valuable additions in the pursuit of early cancer diagnosis, as they offer solutions to the timely detection of signals or symptoms and monitoring of subtle changes in behavior that may otherwise be missed. In addition to signal detection, technologies could assist symptom interpretation and guide and facilitate access to health care. This paper aims to provide an overview of the scientific rationale as to why these technologies could be valuable for early cancer detection, as well as outline the next steps for research and development to drive investigation into the potential for smartphones and wearables in this context and optimize implementation. We draw attention to potential barriers to successful implementation, including the difficulty of the development of signals and sensors with sufficient utility and accuracy through robust research with the target group. There are regulatory challenges; the potential for innovations to exacerbate inequalities; and questions surrounding acceptability, uptake, and correct use by the intended target group and health care practitioners. Finally, there is potential for unintended consequences on individuals and health care services including unnecessary anxiety, increased symptom burden, overinvestigation, and inappropriate use of health care resources.

Psychological Impact of the Galleri test (sIG(n)al): protocol for a longitudinal evaluation of the psychological impact of receiving a cancer signal in the NHS-Galleri trial

INTRODUCTION

Multi-cancer early detection (MCED) blood tests look for cancer signals in cell-free deoxyribonucleic acid. These tests have the potential to detect cancers at an earlier (asymptomatic) stage, improving cancer outcomes. Any screening method needs careful consideration of the psychological harms prior to implementation. The aim of this research is to explore the psychological impact of having a cancer signal detected following an MCED blood test.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

The project is embedded in the NHS-Galleri trial (ISRCTN91431511; NCT05611632), a large clinical trial in eight Cancer Alliances in England. In the trial, over 140 000 members of the general population aged 50-77 have been randomised 1:1 to either the intervention (blood tested with MCED test) or control (blood stored) arm. The proposed project focuses on participants in the intervention arm, who have a cancer signal detected. All participants who have a cancer signal detected (expected to be around 700 assuming a 1% test positive rate) will be sent a questionnaire at three timepoints: soon after receiving their result, 6 months and approximately 12 months later. The primary outcome is anxiety, assessed using the short-form 6-item Spielberger State Trait Anxiety Inventory. We will also assess the psychological consequences of screening (using the Psychological Consequences of Screening Questionnaire), reassurance/concern about the test result, understanding of results and help/health-seeking behaviour. A subsample of 40 participants (20 with a cancer diagnosis and 20 for whom no cancer was found) will be invited to take part in a one-to-one semistructured interview.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

Ethical approval for this work has been granted by the Wales Research Ethics Committee as part of the NHS-Galleri trial (Ref 21/WA/0141). Consent to be sent questionnaires is collected as part of the main trial. A separate consent form will be required for interview. Results will be disseminated via peer-reviewed publication and conference presentations.

Should we? Could we? Feasibility of interventions to support prevention or early diagnosis of future cancer following urgent referral: A qualitative study

OBJECTIVE

This study investigated perspectives of healthcare professionals (HCPs) on the feasibility of giving additional support to patients after cancer is not found following urgent referral. We sought to understand key facilitators or barriers to offering such support.

METHODS

A convenience sample of primary and secondary care healthcare professionals (n = 36) participated in semi-structured interviews. Interviews were transcribed verbatim and analysed using Framework Analysis, inductively and deductively, guided by the Theoretical Domains Framework.

RESULTS

HCPs indicated that support should be offered if proven to be efficacious. It needs to avoid potential negative consequences such as patient anxiety and information overload. HCPs were more hesitant about whether support could feasibly be offered, due to resource restrictions and perceived remit of the urgent pathway for suspected cancer.

CONCLUSION

HCP support after discharge from urgent cancer referral pathways needs to be resource efficient, developed in collaboration with patients and should have proven efficacy. Development of brief interventions for delivery by a range of staff, and use of technology could mitigate barriers to implementation.

PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS

Changes to discharge procedures to provide information, endorsement or direction to services could offer much needed support. Additional support would need to overcome logistical challenges and address limited capacity.

Socioeconomic inequalities in interval colorectal cancer are explained by differences in faecal haemoglobin concentration and age: a register-based cohort study

OBJECTIVE

To estimate the risk of interval colorectal cancer (CRC) in faecal immunochemical test (FIT) negative screening participants according to socioeconomic status.

DESIGN

In this register-based study, first round FIT negative (<20 µg hb/g faeces) screening participants (biennial FIT, citizens aged 50-74) were followed to estimate interval CRC risk. Multivariate Cox proportional hazard regression models estimated HRs based on socioeconomic status defined by educational level and income. Models were adjusted for age, sex and FIT concentration.

RESULTS

We identified 829 (0.7‰) interval CRC in 1 160 902 individuals. Interval CRC was more common in lower socioeconomic strata with 0.7‰ for medium-long higher education compared with 1.0‰ for elementary school and 0.4‰ in the highest income quartile compared with 1.2‰ in the lowest. These differences did not translate into significant differences in HR in the multivariate analysis, as they were explained by FIT concentration and age. HR for interval CRC was 7.09 (95% CI) for FIT concentrations 11.9-19.8 µg hb/g faeces, and 3.37 (95% CI) for FIT between 7.2 and 11.8 compared with those <7.2. The HR rose with increasing age ranging from 2.06 (95% CI 1.45 to 2.93) to 7.60 (95% CI 5.63 to 10.25) compared with those under 55 years.

CONCLUSION

Interval CRC risk increased with decreasing income, heavily influenced by lower income individuals more often being older and having increased FIT concentrations. Individualising screening interval based on age and FIT result, may decrease interval CRC rates, reduce the social gradient and thereby increase the screening efficiency.

Impact of residual risk messaging to reduce false reassurance following test-negative results from asymptomatic coronavirus (SARS-CoV-2) testing: an online experimental study of a hypothetical test

OBJECTIVES

Individuals who receive a negative lateral flow coronavirus test result may misunderstand it as meaning 'no risk of infectiousness', giving false reassurance. This experiment tested the impact of adding information to negative test result messages about residual risk and the need to continue protective behaviours.

DESIGN

4 (residual risk) × 2 (post-test result behaviours) between-subjects design.

SETTING

Online.

PARTICIPANTS

1200 adults from a representative UK sample recruited via Prolific (12-15 March 2021).

INTERVENTIONS

Participants were randomly allocated to one of eight messages. Residual risk messages were: (1) 'Your coronavirus test result is negative' (control); (2) message 1 plus 'It's likely you were not infectious when the test was done' (current NHS Test & Trace (T&T); (3) message 2 plus 'But there is still a chance you may be infectious' (elaborated NHS T&T); and (4) message 3 plus infographic depicting residual risk (elaborated NHS T&T+infographic). Each message contained either no additional information or information about the need to continue following guidelines and protective behaviours.

OUTCOME MEASURES

(1) Proportion understanding residual risk of infectiousness and (2) likelihood of engaging in protective behaviours (scales 1-7).

RESULTS

The control message decreased understanding relative to the current NHS T&T message: 54% versus 71% (Adjusted Odds Ratio (AOR)=0.56 95% CI 0.34 to 0.95, p=0.030). Understanding increased with the elaborated NHS T&T (89%; AOR=3.25 95% CI 1.64 to 6.42, p=0.001) and elaborated NHS T&T+infographic (91%; AOR=5.16 95% CI 2.47 to 10.82, p<0.001) compared with current NHS T&T message. Likelihood of engaging in protective behaviours was unaffected by information (AOR=1.11 95% CI 0.69 to 1.80, χ²(1)=0.18, p=0.669), being high (M=6.4, SD=0.9) across the sample.

CONCLUSIONS

A considerable proportion of participants misunderstood the residual risk following a negative test result. The addition of a single sentence ('But there is still a chance you may be infectious') to current NHS T&T wording increased understanding of residual risk.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

OSF: https://osf.io/byfz3/.

Impact of residual risk messaging to reduce false reassurance following test-negative results from asymptomatic coronavirus (SARS-CoV-2) testing: an online experimental study of a hypothetical test

OBJECTIVES

Individuals who receive a negative lateral flow coronavirus test result may misunderstand it as meaning 'no risk of infectiousness', giving false reassurance. This experiment tested the impact of adding information to negative test result messages about residual risk and the need to continue protective behaviours.

DESIGN

4 (residual risk) × 2 (post-test result behaviours) between-subjects design.

SETTING

Online.

PARTICIPANTS

1200 adults from a representative UK sample recruited via Prolific (12-15 March 2021).

INTERVENTIONS

Participants were randomly allocated to one of eight messages. Residual risk messages were: (1) 'Your coronavirus test result is negative' (control); (2) message 1 plus 'It's likely you were not infectious when the test was done' (current NHS Test & Trace (T&T); (3) message 2 plus 'But there is still a chance you may be infectious' (elaborated NHS T&T); and (4) message 3 plus infographic depicting residual risk (elaborated NHS T&T+infographic). Each message contained either no additional information or information about the need to continue following guidelines and protective behaviours.

OUTCOME MEASURES

(1) Proportion understanding residual risk of infectiousness and (2) likelihood of engaging in protective behaviours (scales 1-7).

RESULTS

The control message decreased understanding relative to the current NHS T&T message: 54% versus 71% (Adjusted Odds Ratio (AOR)=0.56 95% CI 0.34 to 0.95, p=0.030). Understanding increased with the elaborated NHS T&T (89%; AOR=3.25 95% CI 1.64 to 6.42, p=0.001) and elaborated NHS T&T+infographic (91%; AOR=5.16 95% CI 2.47 to 10.82, p<0.001) compared with current NHS T&T message. Likelihood of engaging in protective behaviours was unaffected by information (AOR=1.11 95% CI 0.69 to 1.80, χ²(1)=0.18, p=0.669), being high (M=6.4, SD=0.9) across the sample.

CONCLUSIONS

A considerable proportion of participants misunderstood the residual risk following a negative test result. The addition of a single sentence ('But there is still a chance you may be infectious') to current NHS T&T wording increased understanding of residual risk.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

OSF: https://osf.io/byfz3/.

Why do people take part in atrial fibrillation screening? Qualitative interview study in English primary care

OBJECTIVES

There is insufficient evidence to support national screening programmes for atrial fibrillation (AF). Nevertheless, some practitioners, policy-makers and special interest groups have encouraged introduction of opportunistic screening in primary care in order to reduce the incidence of stroke through earlier detection and treatment of AF. The attitudes of the public towards AF screening are unknown. We aimed to explore why AF screening participants took part in the screening.

DESIGN

Semistructured longitudinal interview study of participant engagement in the SAFER study (Screening for Atrial Fibrillation with ECG to Reduce stroke). We undertook initial interviews face to face, with up to two follow-up telephone interviews during the screening process. We thematically analysed and synthesised these data to understand shared views of screening participation.

SETTING

5 primary care practices in the East of England, UK.

PARTICIPANTS

23 people taking part in the SAFER study first feasibility phase.

RESULTS

Participants were supportive of screening for AF, explaining their participation in screening as a 'good thing to do'. Participants suggested screening could facilitate earlier diagnosis, more effective treatment, and a better future outcome, despite most being unfamiliar with AF. Participating in AF screening helped attenuate participants' concerns about stroke and demonstrated their commitment to self-care and being a 'good patient'. Participants felt that the screening test was non-invasive, and they were unlikely to have AF; they therefore considered engaging in AF screening was low risk, with few perceived harms.

CONCLUSIONS

Participants assessed the SAFER AF screening programme to be a legitimate, relevant and safe screening opportunity, and complied obediently with what they perceived to be a recommendation to take part. Their unreserved acceptance of screening benefit and lack of awareness of potential harms suggests that uptake would be high but reinforces the importance of ensuring participants receive balanced information about AF screening initiatives.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

ISRCTN16939438; Pre-results.

Optimizing the colorectal cancer screening programme using faecal immunochemical test (FIT) in Flanders, Belgium from the “interval cancer” perspective

Background

Interval cancer (IC) is a critical issue in colorectal cancer (CRC) screening. We identified factors associated with ICs after faecal immunochemical test (FIT) screening and explored the impact of lowering FIT cut-off or shortening screening interval on FIT-ICs in Flanders.

Methods

FIT participants diagnosed with a CRC during 2013–2018 were included. Factors associated with FIT-ICs were identified using logistic regression. Distributions of FIT results among FIT-ICs were examined.

Results

In total, 10,122 screen-detected CRCs and 1534 FIT-ICs were included (FIT-IC proportion of 13%). FIT-ICs occurred more frequently in women (OR 1.58 [95% CI 1.41–1.76]) and ages 70–74 (OR 1.35 [1.14–1.59]). FIT-ICs were more often right-sided (OR 3.53 [2.98–4.20]), advanced stage (stage IV: OR 7.15 [5.76–8.88]), and high grade (poorly/undifferentiated: OR 2.57 [2.08–3.18]). The majority (83–92%) of FIT-ICs would still be missed if FIT cut-off was lowered from 15 to 10 µg Hb/g or screening interval was shortened from 2 to 1 year.

Conclusions

FIT-ICs were more common in women, older age, right-sided location, advanced stage and high grade. In Flanders, lowering FIT cut-off (to 10 µg Hb/g) or shortening screening interval (to 1 year) would have a minimal impact on FIT-ICs.

Future Prospects of Colorectal Cancer Screening: Characterizing Interval Cancers

Tumors that are not detected by screening tests are known as interval cancers and are diagnosed clinically after a negative result in the screening episode but before the next screening invitation. Clinical characteristics associated with interval colorectal cancers have been studied, but few molecular data are available that describe interval colorectal cancers. A better understanding of the clinical and biological characteristics associated with interval colorectal cancer may provide new insights into how to prevent this disease more effectively. This review aimed to summarize the current literature concerning interval colorectal cancer and its epidemiological, clinical, and molecular features.

False-Negative Results in Lung Cancer Screening-Evidence and Controversies

Identifying false-negative cases is an important quality metric in lung cancer screening, but it has been infrequently and variably reported in previous studies. Although as a proportion of all screening participants, false-negative cases are uncommon, such cases may constitute a substantial proportion of all lung cancers diagnosed (up to 15%) within a screening program. This article reviews the impact and causes of false-negative lung cancer screening tests, including those related to radiologic evaluation, nodule management protocols, and management decisions made by multidisciplinary teams. Following a review of data from international screening studies, this article discusses the controversies within the screening literature surrounding the definition and classification of a false-negative lung cancer screening test and how data on false-negative rates should be captured and recorded. Challenges, such as avoiding overly cautious surveillance of lung nodules while minimizing overdiagnosis and investigation of indolent or benign lesions, are considered. Finally, the advantages and disadvantages of different approaches to dealing with false-negative results in lung cancer screening are discussed.

Symptom Perceptions and Help-Seeking Behaviours of Omani Patients Diagnosed with Late-Stage Colorectal Cancer: A Qualitative Study

OBJECTIVE

Colorectal cancer (CRC) is the fourth leading cause of mortality in Oman, with most patients diagnosed at advanced stages. Early diagnosis of CRC improves prognosis and survival rate. The aim of this study was to explore the symptom perceptions and help-seeking behaviours (HSBs) of Omani patients diagnosed with late-stage CRC.

METHODS

Semi-structured individual interviews were conducted with 16 patients.

RESULTS

Four main themes emerged, including normalisation and ignorance (patients felt healthy, perceived symptoms as not being serious and related to dietary habits, concealed them or prioritised work and family commitments), self-empowerment and self-management (patients were stubborn, employed 'wait and see' approach, used symptomatic or herbal treatments), disclosure and seeking help (patients disclosed symptoms to family members or friends, sought medical help only when symptoms worsened, visited faith healers or travelled abroad for treatment) and healthcare professionals (patients attributed treatment or diagnosis delays to lack of continuity of care, loss of trust in doctors or delays in referral).

CONCLUSION

Patients attributed delays in CRC diagnosis to several factors based on their perceptions of symptoms. Most HSBs driven by sociocultural and emotional causes. Increased awareness of CRC symptoms and modifying HSBs can encourage early diagnosis. Prompting patients to disclose CRC-related symptoms may aid referral decisions.

Patient-physician relationships, health self-efficacy, and gynecologic cancer screening among women with Lynch syndrome

Background

Lynch syndrome, a hereditary cancer syndrome, predisposes women to colorectal, endometrial, and ovarian cancer. Current guidelines recommend that women with Lynch syndrome undergo risk-reducing gynecological surgery to reduce their chances of developing endometrial or ovarian cancer. Little is known about how women with Lynch syndrome perceive gynecological cancer screening, or the psychosocial factors associated with screening attitudes and behaviour.

Methods

This study used a cross-sectional, quantitative design. Using self-report questionnaire data from a sample of women with Lynch syndrome (N = 50) who had not undergone risk-reducing surgery, the current study sought to: 1) describe the gynecological cancer screening behaviours of women with Lynch syndrome, as well participant-reported sources of information about Lynch syndrome; 2) examine the extent to which women believe gynecological cancer screening is effective and provides them with reassurance and; 3) assess to what extent relationships with one’s family physician were associated with gynecological cancer screening, perceptions about screening, and health self-efficacy. Data were analyzed using descriptive statistics and Spearman rank-ordered correlations.

Results

Data analyses showed that transvaginal ultrasound was the most common screening behaviour (57%) followed by pelvic ultrasound (47%). Only 22% of participants underwent endometrial biopsy. Patient-physician relationships were related to greater health self-efficacy to manage Lynch syndrome and greater perceived effectiveness of gynecological screening. However, health self-efficacy and better patient-physician relationships were not associated with increased engagement in gynecological cancer screening.

Conclusions

The data suggest that feeling efficacious about managing one’s Lynch syndrome and screening is related to positive interactions and communication with one’s family physician. While this is encouraging, future research should examine educating both family physicians and patients about current guidelines for Lynch syndrome gynecological screening recommendations.

Screen-detected and interval colorectal cancers in England: Associations with lifestyle and other factors in women in a large UK prospective cohort

Faecal occult blood (FOB) - based screening programmes for colorectal cancer detect about half of all cancers. Little is known about individual health behavioural characteristics which may be associated with screen-detected and interval cancers. Electronic linkage between the UK National Health Service Bowel Cancer Screening Programme (BCSP) in England, cancer registration and other national health records, and a large on-going UK cohort, the Million Women Study, provided data on 628,976 women screened using a guaiac-FOB test (gFOBt) between 2006 and 2012. Relative risks (RRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were estimated by logistic and Cox regression for associations between individual lifestyle factors and risk of colorectal tumours. Among screened women, 766 were diagnosed with screen-detected colorectal cancer registered within 2 years after a positive gFOBt result, and 749 with interval colorectal cancers registered within 2 years after a negative gFOBt result. Current smoking was significantly associated with risk of interval cancer (RR 1.64, 95%CI 1.35-1.99) but not with risk of screen-detected cancer (RR 1.03, 0.84-1.28), and was the only factor of eight examined to show a significant difference in risk between interval and screen-detected cancers (p for difference, 0.003). Compared to screen-detected cancers, interval cancers tended to be sited in the proximal colon or rectum, to be of non-adenocarcinoma morphology, and to be of higher stage.

Interval cancers after negative immunochemical test compared to screen and non-responders' detected cancers in Slovenian colorectal cancer screening programme

Background

We assessed the incidence and characteristics of interval cancers after faecal immunochemical occult blood test and calculated the test sensitivity in Slovenian colorectal cancer screening programme.

Patients and methods

The analysis included the population aged between 50 to 69 years, which was invited for screening between April 2011 and December 2012. The persons were followed-up until the next foreseen invitation, in average for 2 years. The data on interval cancers and cancers in non-responders were obtained from cancer registry. Gender, age, years of schooling, the cancer site and stage were compared among three observed groups. We used the proportional incidence method to calculate the screening test sensitivity.

Results

Among 502,488 persons invited for screening, 493 cancers were detected after positive screening test, 79 interval cancers after negative faecal immunochemical test and 395 in non-responders. The proportion of interval cancers was 13.8%. Among the three observed groups cancers were more frequent in men (p = 0.009) and in persons aged 60+ years (p < 0.001). Comparing screen detected and cancers in non-responders with interval cancers more interval cancers were detected in persons with 10 years of schooling or more (p = 0.029 and p = 0.001), in stage III (p = 0.027) and IV (p < 0.001), and in right hemicolon (p < 0.001). Interval cancers were more frequently in stage I than non-responders cancers (p = 0.004). Test sensitivity of faecal immunochemical test was 88.45%.

Conclusions

Interval cancers in Slovenian screening programme were detected in expected proportions as in similar programmes. Test sensitivity was among the highest when compared to similar programmes and was accomplished using test kit for two stool samples.

The contribution of a negative colorectal screening test result to symptom appraisal and help-seeking behaviour among patients subsequently diagnosed with an interval colorectal cancer

Background

Colorectal cancer (CRC) screening programmes using a guaiac faecal occult blood test (gFOBt) reduce CRC mortality. Interval cancers are diagnosed between screening rounds: reassurance from a negative gFOBt has the potential to influence the pathway to diagnosis of an interval colorectal cancer.

Methods

Twenty‐six semi‐structured face‐to‐face interviews were carried out in Scotland and England, with individuals diagnosed with an interval colorectal cancer following a negative gFOBt result.

Results

Participants reported they were reassured by a negative gFOBt, interpreting their result as an “all clear”. Therefore, most did not suspect cancer as a possible cause of symptoms and many did not recall their screening result during symptom appraisal. Among those who did consider cancer, and did think about their screening test result, reassurance from a negative gFOBt led some to “downplay” the seriousness of their symptoms with some interviewees explicitly stating that their negative test result contributed to a delayed decision to seek help.

Conclusion

Screening participants need to be informed of the limitations of screening and the ongoing risk of developing colorectal cancer even when in receipt of a negative result: the importance of minimizing delay in seeking medical advice for colorectal symptoms should be emphasized.