Self-sampling in screening to reduce mortality from colorectal cancer: a qualitative exploration of the decision to complete a faecal occult blood test (FOBT)

Bowel cancer knowledge gaps evident among Irish residents: results of a national questionnaire survey

BACKGROUND

The extent of knowledge of bowel cancer, its symptoms and risk factors are unknown in Irish residents. An understanding of bowel cancer awareness may be useful in aiding healthcare professionals, and policy makers develop improved bowel cancer awareness programmes and public health initiatives in Ireland.

AIMS AND METHODS

A 22-question online questionnaire survey was designed to gather data to assess residents' awareness of bowel cancer, its symptoms, and risk factors and to determine reasons for not participating in BowelScreen Ireland.

RESULTS

There were 449 participants (329 women, 119 men and 1 'prefer not to say'). The majority of participants were aged 35-49 years (42.8%), and 82.6% had completed a third level qualification. Irish residents (non-healthcare professionals/scientists (NHCP/S)) recalled on average less than three warning signs/symptoms. Among NHCP/S the most well-recalled protective diet and lifestyle choices were active lifestyle/exercise (62.1%), a fibre rich diet (45.4%) and no/low alcohol consumption (32.1%). Many were unable to recall red and processed meat as risk factors with only 10.7% and 4.9%, respectively, citing these foods. However, prompted awareness was superior with 71.1% agreeing or strongly agreeing that consumption of red and processed meat is a risk factor. 43.4% said they would be 'fairly confident' in recognising a sign/symptom, but more than a third (38.7%) reported they were 'not very confident'.

CONCLUSION

This survey emphasises the need to improve the awareness of bowel cancer as gaps in this specific cancer knowledge were evident among Irish residents.

Public acceptability of a technology-mediated stool sample collection platform to inform community-based surveillance of infectious intestinal disease: a pilot study

BACKGROUND

In the UK approximately a quarter of the population experience infectious intestinal disease (IID) each year. However, only 2% present to primary care, preventing a true determination of community burden and pathogen aetiology. The aim of this pilot study was to gauge public acceptability of a technology-mediated platform for reporting episodes of IID and for providing stool samples.

METHODS

This study employed a cross-sectional online survey design, targeting individuals 16 + years old within Liverpool City Region, UK. Information sought included demographics, comfortability of reporting illness and IID symptoms, willingness to provide stool, and favoured stool-provision method. Univariable logistic regression was used to examine associations between demographic variables and providing a stool sample. Odds ratios (OR) and associated 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were produced.

RESULTS

A total of 174 eligible participants completed the survey, with 69% female. The sample was skewed towards younger populations, with 2.9% aged 65 + years. Nearly a third (29%) had a household income of less than £30,000 per annum and 70% had attained a degree or higher. The majority identified as White British (81%) and 11% identified as ethnicities typically grouped Black, Asian and minority ethnic (BAME). Three quarters of participants were either 'Comfortable' or 'Very Comfortable' with reporting illness (75%) and with answering symptom-related questions (79%); 78% reported that they would provide a stool sample. Upon univariable analysis, increasing age - being 55 + (OR 6.28, 95% CI 1.15-117.48), and lower income (OR 2.5, 95% CI 1.02-6.60), was associated with willingness to provide a stool sample. Additionally, respondents identifying as BAME ethnicities and men may be less inclined to provide a stool sample.

CONCLUSIONS

This pilot study assessed the acceptability of technology-mediated platforms for reporting IID and provision of stool samples in the community. Respondents were biased towards younger, technologically inclined, more affluent and educated populations. Acceptability for reporting illness and providing a stool sample through technology-mediated platforms was high. While older populations were under-represented, they were more likely to agree to provide a stool sample. Qualitative research is required to better reach older and more deprived populations, and to understand potential age, gender and ethnic differences in compliance with stool sampling.

Understanding barriers and facilitators to participation in colorectal cancer screening: A French qualitative study

Based on the theory of social representations, this study aims to identify the main determinants to participation in colorectal cancer screening. Six focus groups (N = 29 participants belonging to the general population) were conducted, followed by a theoretical thematic analysis. Screening obstacles are a lack of test's accessibility, a low preoccupation for prevention and the negative image of colorectal cancer. Conversely, screening facilitators are the ease of the new test, being encouraged to get screened and appointment reminder. This study advances understanding of adherence to screening by addressing the beliefs and knowledge surrounding it.

Could stool collection devices help increase uptake in bowel cancer screening programmes?

Objective

To understand the usage and acceptability of a faecal collection device amongst participants in the National Health Service Bowel Cancer Screening Programme, with the aim of influencing future uptake.

Setting

Participants completing faecal occult blood test retests as part of the routine Bowel Cancer Screening Programme in Eastern England.

Methods

A faecal collection device and questionnaire were sent to all potential retest participants during a one-month period to collect information on prior stool collection methods and ease of use and usefulness of the enclosed faecal collection device.

Results

Out of 1087 participants invited, 679 (62.5%) returned their questionnaire. Of these, 429 (63.2%) trialled the faecal collection device at least once, 163 (38.4%) found the device made collecting their sample easier than previously, 189 (44.6%) found it made collection more difficult and 72 (17.0%) said it made no difference. Similar numbers reported finding that the faecal collection device made collecting the sample more pleasant (130, 31.5%), less pleasant (103, 25.0%) and no different (179, 43.4%) compared with previous collection without a faecal collection device.

Conclusion

Although a small proportion of participants found the faecal collection device helpful, a considerable majority did not or did not use it at all. Offering faecal collection devices is unlikely to produce a substantial increase in bowel cancer screening uptake.

"Finding the Right FIT": Rural Patient Preferences for Fecal Immunochemical Test (FIT) Characteristics

PURPOSE

Colorectal cancer (CRC) is the third leading cause of cancer death in the United States, yet 1 in 3 Americans have never been screened for CRC. Annual screening using fecal immunochemical tests (FITs) is often a preferred modality in populations experiencing CRC screening disparities. Although multiple studies evaluate the clinical effectiveness of FITs, few studies assess patient preferences toward kit characteristics. We conducted this community-led study to assess patient preferences for FIT characteristics and to use study findings in concert with clinical effectiveness data to inform regional FIT selection.

METHODS

We collaborated with local health system leaders to identify FITs and recruit age eligible (50 to 75 years), English or Spanish speaking community members. Participants completed up to 6 FITs and associated questionnaires and were invited to participate in a follow-up focus group. We used a sequential explanatory mixed-methods design to assess participant preferences and rank FIT kits. First, we used quantitative data from user testing to measure acceptability, ease of completion, and specimen adequacy through a descriptive analysis of 1) fixed response questionnaire items on participant attitudes toward and experiences with FIT kits, and 2) a clinical assessment of adherence to directions regarding collection, packaging, and return of specimens. Second, we analyzed qualitative data from focus groups to refine FIT rankings and gain deeper insight into the pros and cons associated with each tested kit.

FINDINGS

Seventy-six FITs were completed by 18 participants (Range, 3 to 6 kits per participant). Over half (56%, n = 10) of the participants were Hispanic and 50% were female (n = 9). Thirteen participants attended 1 of 3 focus groups. Participants preferred FITs that were single sample, used a probe and vial for sample collection, and had simple, large-font instructions with colorful pictures. Participants reported challenges using paper to catch samples, had difficulty labeling tests, and emphasized the importance of having care team members provide verbal instructions on test completion and follow-up support for patients with abnormal results. FIT rankings from most to least preferred were OC-Light, Hemosure iFOB Test, InSure FIT, QuickVue, OneStep+, and Hemoccult ICT.

CONCLUSIONS

FIT characteristics influenced patient's perceptions of test acceptability and feasibility. Health system leaders, payers, and clinicians should select FITs that are both clinically effective and incorporate patient preferred test characteristics. Consideration of patient preferences may facilitate FIT return, especially in populations at higher risk for experiencing CRC screening disparities.

What impact do questionnaire length and monetary incentives have on mailed health psychology survey response?

Objectives

Response rates to health‐related surveys are declining. This study tested two strategies to improve the response rate to a health psychology survey mailed through English general practices: (1) sending a shortened questionnaire and (2) offering a monetary incentive to return a completed questionnaire.

Design

Randomized controlled trial.

Methods

Adults (n = 4,241) aged 45–59 years, from four General Practices in South‐East England, were mailed a survey on attitudes towards bowel cancer screening. Using a 2 × 4 factorial design, participants were randomized to receive a ‘short’ (four A4 pages) or a ‘long’ (seven A4 pages) questionnaire, and one of four monetary incentives to return a completed questionnaire – (1) no monetary incentive, (2) £2.50 shop voucher, (3) £5.00 shop voucher, and (4) inclusion in a £250 shop voucher prize draw. Age, gender, and area‐level deprivation were obtained from the General Practices.

Results

The overall response rate was 41% (n = 1,589). Response to the ‘short’ questionnaire (42%) was not significantly different from the ‘long’ questionnaire (40%). The £2.50 incentive (43%) significantly improved response rates in univariate analyses, and remained significant after controlling for age, gender, area‐level deprivation, and questionnaire length. The £5.00 (42%) and £250 prize draw (41%) incentives had no significant impact on response rates compared to no incentive (38%).

Conclusions

A small monetary incentive (£2.50) may slightly increase response to a mailed health psychology survey. The length of the questionnaire (four pages vs. seven pages) did not influence response. Although frequently used, entry into a prize draw did not increase response. Achieving representative samples remains a challenge for health psychology.

Systematic Review and Meta-study Synthesis of Qualitative Studies Evaluating Facilitators and Barriers to Participation in Colorectal Cancer Screening

Screening reduces the incidence, morbidity, and mortality of colorectal cancer, yet participation tends to be low. We undertook a systematic review and meta-study synthesis of qualitative studies to identify facilitators and barriers to colorectal cancer screening participation. We searched major bibliographic databases for records published in all languages from inception to February 2015. Included primary studies that elicited views and perceptions towards colorectal cancer screening were appraised for relevance and quality. We used a two-stage synthesis to create an interpretation of colorectal cancer screening decisions grounded in primary studies; a thematic analysis to group themes and systematically compare studies and a meta-synthesis to generate an expanded theory of colorectal cancer screening participation. Ninety-four studies were included. The decision to participate in colorectal cancer screening depended on an individual's awareness of colorectal cancer screening. Awareness affected views of cancer, attitudes towards colorectal cancer screening modalities, and motivation for screening. Factors mediating awareness included public education to address misconceptions, primary care physician efforts to recommend screening, and the influence of friends and family. Specific barriers to participation in populations with lower participation rates included language barriers, logistical challenges to attending screening tests, and cultural beliefs. This study identifies key barriers, facilitators, and mediators to colorectal cancer screening participation. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev; 25(6); 907-17. ©2016 AACR.

Piloting the Impact of Three Interventions on Guaiac Faecal Occult Blood Test Uptake within the NHS Bowel Cancer Screening Programme

This study evaluated the impact of three interventions on uptake of the guaiac faecal occult blood test (gFOBT) in Greater London. The interventions were designed to improve awareness and understanding of the NHS Bowel Cancer Screening Programme (BCSP) and assist stool sampling. Logistic regression analysis of BCSP London data (N = 205,541 invitees aged 60–74) compared uptake at 12 weeks between intervention groups and a control group, sent kits as usual between January-April 2013 and January-April 2014. An endorsement flyer, included with gFOBT kits, had no impact on uptake (P = 0.68). In 60–69-year-olds, there was a small but significant increase in modelled uptake amongst invitees sent both the flyer and a kit enhancement pack compared with controls (45.1% versus 43.4%, OR = 1.07, P = 0.047). In North East London, the flyer together with outdoor advertising was associated with a small but significant increase (45.6% versus 43.4%, OR = 1.09, P = 0.027). The largest increases were seen when all three interventions (flyer, pack, and advertising) were combined (49.5% versus 43.4%, OR = 1.28, P < 0.001). The increased uptake in the intervention groups was largest in “first-timers” and smaller amongst previous nonresponders and previously screened invitees.

Social Cognitive Mediators of Sociodemographic Differences in Colorectal Cancer Screening Uptake

Background. This study examined if and how sociodemographic differences in colorectal cancer (CRC) screening uptake can be explained by social cognitive factors. Methods. Face-to-face interviews were conducted with individuals aged 60–70 years (n = 1309) living in England as part of a population-based omnibus survey. Results. There were differences in screening uptake by SES, marital status, ethnicity, and age but not by gender. Perceived barriers (stand. b = −0.40, p < 0.001), social norms (stand. b = 0.33, p < 0.001), and screening knowledge (stand. b = 0.17, p < 0.001) had independent associations with uptake. SES differences in uptake were mediated through knowledge, social norms, and perceived barriers. Ethnic differences were mediated through knowledge. Differences in uptake by marital status were primarily mediated through social norms and to a lesser extent through knowledge. Age differences were largely unmediated, except for a small mediated effect via social norms. Conclusions. Sociodemographic differences in CRC screening uptake were largely mediated through social cognitive factors. Impact. Our findings suggest that multifaceted interventions might be needed to reduce socioeconomic inequalities. Ethnic differences might be reduced through improved screening knowledge. Normative interventions could emphasise screening as an activity endorsed by important others outside the immediate family to appeal to a wider audience.

Understanding low colorectal cancer screening uptake in South Asian faith communities in England--a qualitative study

Background

Colorectal cancer screening uptake within the South Asian population in England is approximately half that of the general population (33 % vs 61 %), and varies by Muslim (31.9 %), Sikh (34.6 %) and Hindu (43.7 %) faith background. This study sought to explore reasons for low uptake of CRC screening in South Asian communities and for the variability of low uptake between three faith communities; and to identify strategies by which uptake might be improved.

Methods

We interviewed 16 ‘key informants’ representing communities from the three largest South Asian faith backgrounds (Islam, Hinduism and Sikhism) in London, England.

Results

Reasons for low colorectal cancer screening uptake were overwhelmingly shared across South Asian faith groups. These were: limitations posed by written English; limitations posed by any written language; reliance on younger family members; low awareness of colorectal cancer and screening; and difficulties associated with faeces. Non-written information delivered verbally and interactively within faith or community settings was preferred across faith communities.

Conclusions

Efforts to increase accessibility to colorectal cancer screening in South Asian communities should use local language broadcasts on ethnic media and face-to-face approaches within community and faith settings to increase awareness of colorectal cancer and screening, and address challenges posed by written materials.

Reasons for non-participation in the Northern Ireland Bowel Cancer Screening Programme: a qualitative study

OBJECTIVES

To identify the reasons why some people do not participate in bowel cancer screening so that steps can be taken to improve informed decision-making.

DESIGN

Qualitative study, using focus groups with thematic analysis of data to identify, analyse and report patterns. Transcripts were repeatedly read and inductively coded using a phenomenological perspective, and organised into key themes.

SETTING

Belfast and Armagh, two areas of Northern Ireland with relatively low uptake of bowel cancer screening.

PARTICIPANTS

Ten women and 18 men in three single-gender focus groups (two male and one female), each with 9-10 participants. Study participants were recruited by convenience sampling from the general public and were eligible for, but had not taken part in, the Northern Ireland Bowel Cancer Screening Programme.

RESULTS

Key themes identified were fear of cancer; the test procedure; social norms; past experience of cancer and screening; lack of knowledge or understanding about bowel cancer screening; and resulting behaviour towards the test. Fear about receiving bad news and reluctance to conduct the test themselves were reactions that participants seemed willing to overcome after taking part in open discussion about the test.

CONCLUSIONS

We identified barriers to participation in bowel cancer screening and used these insights to develop new materials to support delivery of the programme. Some of the issues raised have been identified in other UK settings, suggesting that knowledge about barriers, and strategies to improve uptake, may be generalisable.

Factors associated with use and non-use of the Fecal Immunochemical Test (FIT) kit for Colorectal Cancer Screening in Response to a 2012 outreach screening program: a survey study

Background

The one-sample fecal immunochemical test (FIT) is gaining popularity for colorectal cancer (CRC) screening of average-risk people. However, uptake and annual use remain suboptimal.

Methods

In 2013, we mailed questionnaires to three groups of nonHispanic White, Black, and Latino Kaiser Permanente Northern California (KPNC) members ages 52–76 who received FIT kits in 2010–2012: Continuers did the FIT all 3 years; Converts in 2012, but not 2010 or 2011; and Nonusers in none of the 3 years. The questionnaires covered social influences, perceived CRC risk, reasons for using (Continuers, Converts) or avoiding using (Nonusers) the FIT, and recommendations for improving the kit.

Results

Continuers (n = 607, response rate 67.5 %), Converts (n = 317, response rate 35.6 %), and Nonusers (n = 215, response rate 21.1 %) did not differ in perceived risk or family history of CRC, but Nonusers were less likely than Continuers and Converts to know someone who had polyps or CRC. Continuers, Converts, and Nonusers did not differ in social network encouragement of CRC screening, but did differ in believing that it was very important that they be screened (88.3 %, 68.4 %, 47.7 %) and that their medical team thought it very important that they be screened (88.6 %, 79.9 %, 53.9 %). Approximately half of Continuers and Converts completed the FIT to please their doctor. Converts were less likely than Continuers to use the FIT to “make sure they were OK” (53.7 % vs. 72.6 %) or “protect their health” (46.1 % vs. 76.4 %). Nearly half of Converts completed the FIT out of guilt. Approximately half of FIT kit users suggested adding a disposable glove, extra paper, and wider-mouth tube to the kit. Nonusers’ reasons for not using the FIT included discomfort, disgust, or embarrassment (59.6 %); thinking it unnecessary (32.9 %); fatalism/fear (15.5 %); and thinking it too difficult to use (14.5 %), but <10 % did not want CRC screening at all.

Conclusions

Nonusers and irregular users of the FIT are less intrinsically motivated to get CRC screening than long-term users and more averse to preparing their stool sample. Changes to the FIT kit to address discomfort and difficulty factors might improve uptake and continued use.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s12889-015-1908-x) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Reasons for non-response to a direct-mailed FIT kit program: lessons learned from a pragmatic colorectal-cancer screening study in a federally sponsored health center

Colorectal cancer screening rates are below optimal. As part of a pilot clinic-based pragmatic study aiming to raise rates of colorectal-cancer screening, we explored patients' reasons for not responding to a direct-mailed screening invitation. We conducted telephone interviews with patients who were mailed a fecal immunochemical test (FIT) but who did not return it to the lab. Interviews were audio-recorded, transcribed, and coded for thematic analysis. We met our goal of 20 interviews (10 in English and 10 Spanish; 75 % female). Reasons for not completing tests were fear of results or cost of follow-up colonoscopy (n = 9); not having received the test in the mail (n = 7); concerns about mailing fecal matter or that test results could be mixed up (n = 6); and being busy or forgetful (n = 4). Efforts to improve uptake of colorectal cancer screening in a direct-mailed program ought to address concerns identified in our study.

Reasons for non-uptake and subsequent participation in the NHS Bowel Cancer Screening Programme: a qualitative study

BACKGROUND

Screening for bowel cancer using the guaiac faecal occult blood test offered by the NHS Bowel Cancer Screening Programme (BCSP) is taken up by 54% of the eligible population. Uptake ranges from 35% in the most to 61% in the least deprived areas. This study explores reasons for non-uptake of bowel cancer screening, and examines reasons for subsequent uptake among participants who had initially not taken part in screening.

METHODS

Focus groups with a socio-economically diverse sample of participants were used to explore participants' experience of invitation to and non-uptake of bowel cancer screening.

RESULTS

Participants described sampling faeces and storing faecal samples as broaching a cultural taboo, and causing shame. Completion of the test kit within the home rather than a formal health setting was considered unsettling and reduced perceived importance. Not knowing screening results was reported to be preferable to the implications of a positive screening result. Feeling well was associated with low perceived relevance of screening. Talking about bowel cancer screening with family and peers emerged as the key to subsequent participation in screening.

CONCLUSIONS

Initiatives to normalise discussion about bowel cancer screening, to link the BCSP to general practice, and to simplify the test itself may lead to increased uptake across all social groups.

Attitudes and beliefs of non-participants in a population-based screening programme for colorectal cancer

BACKGROUND

Uptake of colorectal cancer screening programmes needs to be improved or at least maintained in order to achieve projected reductions in mortality and morbidity. Understanding the origins of non-participation in screening is therefore important.

OBJECTIVE

To explore the beliefs and experiences of individuals who had not responded either to their screening invitation or reminder.

DESIGN

A qualitative study using in-depth interviews with non-participants from England's population-based colorectal cancer screening programme. Data collection and analysis were carried out using a grounded theory approach, with an emphasis on the constant comparison method, and continued until saturation (27 interviews).

FINDINGS

The interviews provided an in-depth understanding of a range of reasons and circumstances surrounding non-participation in screening, including contextual and environmental influences as well as factors specific to the screening test. Non-participation in screening was not necessarily associated with negative attitudes towards screening or a decision to not return a kit. Reasons for non-participation in screening included not feeling that participation is personally necessary, avoiding or delaying decision making, and having some degree of intention to take part but failing to do so because of practicalities, conflicting priorities or external circumstances. Beliefs, awareness and intention change over time.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS

A range of approaches may be required to improve screening uptake. Some non-participants may already have a degree of intention to take part in screening in the future, and this group may be more responsive to interventions based on professional endorsement, repeat invitations, reminders and aids to making the test more practical.

Comparing barriers to colorectal cancer screening with barriers to breast and cervical screening: a population-based survey of screening-age women in Great Britain

Objective

Uptake of cancer screening tends to be lower for colorectal cancer (CRC) than cervical or breast cancer. Dislike of the test itself has often been identified as a barrier to CRC screening with the Faecal Occult Blood (FOB) test, but there have been no head-to-head comparisons of the three tests.

Methods

Women aged 50–80 ( n = 890) were recruited in spring 2012 as part of a population-based TNS Research International survey in Great Britain. Those in the eligible age range were asked if they had ever participated in breast, cervical or CRC screening. For each screening test, women who had never participated were asked for their ‘main reason’ using a checklist of barriers.

Results

Among eligible women, 67%, 83% and 90% reported ever having been screened for CRC, cervical and breast cancer respectively. More socioeconomically deprived women were less likely to report any screening, and single women were less likely to report CRC or breast screening than married women. Age was not associated with participation. Overall there were few differences between tests in the reported barriers, but dislike of the test was endorsed more often for CRC screening.

Conclusion

This was the first study to compare barriers to participation in organised screening programmes for CRC, breast and cervical cancer. Cancer screening tests share many barriers, but dislike of the test appears to be a stronger barrier to CRC screening. Women who are non-participants in more than one programme may have more global barriers to screening, such as cancer fatalism. The findings suggest that uptake of CRC screening could be improved by targeting the unpleasantness of stool sampling.

Psychological Barriers and Facilitators of Colorectal Cancer Screening: A French Qualitative Study

The aim of this qualitative study was to explore the psychological barriers to and facilitators of undergoing the Hemoccult-II(®) colorectal cancer screening test in France. Sixty-nine French people aged 50 to 74 years were divided into seven qualitative focus groups. Three issues were discussed with participants: knowledge and beliefs about colorectal cancer screening; facilitators of colorectal cancer screening by Hemoccult-II(®) ; barriers to colorectal cancer screening by Hemoccult-II(®). All the discussions were led by two psychologists and were recorded, transcribed verbatim and analyzed using qualitative data analysis software. Correspondence factor analyses identified three dimensions for each topic. The main psychological facilitators of colorectal cancer screening were: information about colorectal cancer screening, perceived simplicity of using Hemoccult-II(®) , and perception of risk. Uncertainty about the reliability of Hemoccult-II(®), health anxiety, and embarrassment emerged as the main barriers to colorectal cancer screening. Cross-sectional analyses identified the differences between the views expressed by women and men. Women appeared more embarrassed about Hemoccult-II(®) and men seemed to be more worried about colorectal cancer. This preliminary study suggests that psychological factors play an important role in colorectal cancer screening by Hemoccult-II(®). This finding may help health organizations to conceive better awareness campaigns to promote colorectal cancer screening in order to reduce the related mortality rate by taking into account psychological determinants.

Disgust and behavioral avoidance in colorectal cancer screening and treatment: a systematic review and research agenda

BACKGROUND

The emotion of disgust appears to promote psychological and behavioral avoidance, a dynamic that has significant implications in physical and psychological outcomes in colorectal cancer (CRC). Patients, caregivers, and health professionals alike are all potentially susceptible to responding with disgust and the associated avoidance.

OBJECTIVE

This article aimed to review the early-stage literature related to disgust and CRC, consider the clinical implications, and suggest an appropriate research agenda.

METHODS

Given limited research in this area, a systematic review of the literature was broadened to include disgust and all cancers. MEDLINE, Web of Science, SCOPUS, and ProQuest Dissertations and Theses databases were searched, with additional works sourced by reviewing citation lists and/or by contacting the lead authors.

RESULTS

Nine studies were identified relating to disgust and cancer screening, and 6 related to disgust and cancer treatment. Two broad findings emerged: (1) disgust appears to be promoting aversion to (and avoidance of) CRC screening, and (2) several known elicitors of disgust are widely apparent in CRC contexts.

CONCLUSIONS

Disgust likely represents a key emotional substrate for avoidance among CRC patients, caregivers, and health professionals. Further research is required to identify disgust's elicitors and effects in CRC contexts, informing interventions that target early identification of persons at risk of maladaptive outcomes. Exposure therapies and mindfulness training may be well suited to treating disgust-generated avoidance.

IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE

Disgust has significant implications in CRC contexts. Oncology nurses are uniquely positioned to guide clinical interventions and ultimately improve outcomes in this area.

The impact of media coverage of the Flexible Sigmoidoscopy Trial on English colorectal screening uptake

Objective

To assess the impact of media coverage of the UK Flexible Sigmoidoscopy Trial on colorectal screening uptake in England.

Setting

In April 2010, publication of the UK Flexible Sigmoidoscopy (FS) Trial results generated considerable media interest in both FS and colorectal cancer (CRC) generally.

Methods

We used routinely collected data from the south of England (excluding London) to analyse return of faecal occult blood test (FOBt) kits within 28 days of the invitation (early uptake) among 60–69 year olds, before (T1, n = 31,229), around the time of (T2, n = 39,571), and one month after (T3, n = 33,430) the FS publicity.

Results

FOBt uptake over the whole period was 58.2%, with 38.4% of the kits returned within 28 days (early uptake). Across the three time periods, early uptake was 35.8% at T1, 39.4% at T2, and 39.7% at T3. Multivariate regression controlling for age, gender and socioeconomic status confirmed that uptake was higher if people received the FOBt kit around the time of the media coverage (T2: odds ratio [OR] = 1.17, 95% CI = 1.13–1.20), or one month after (T3: OR = 1.18, 95% CI = 1.15–1.22) than before (T1). Sub-group analyses demonstrated that the impact was stronger among previous non-responders than among first-time invitees or previous responders (P < 0.001).

Conclusion

Media coverage of the FS Trial appeared to have a small but positive impact on FOBt screening uptake, especially among people who had previously abstained from screening.

Cancer fatalism and poor self-rated health mediate the association between socioeconomic status and uptake of colorectal cancer screening in England

BACKGROUND

Little is known about the psychological predictors of colorectal screening uptake in England and mediators of associations between uptake and socioeconomic status (SES). This study tested the hypotheses that although higher threat and efficacy beliefs, lower cancer fatalism, lower depression, and better self-rated health would predict higher screening uptake, only efficacy beliefs, fatalism, depression, and self-rated health would mediate associations between uptake and SES.

METHODS

Data from 529 adults aged 60 to 69 who had completed a postal survey in 2005-2006 were linked with data on fecal occult blood test (FOBt) uptake recorded at the screening "hub" following its introduction in 2007, resulting in a prospective study.

RESULTS

Screening uptake was 56% and was higher among people with higher SES, better self-rated health, higher self-efficacy beliefs, and lower cancer fatalism in univariate analyses. Path analysis on participants with complete data (n = 515) showed that both better self-rated health and lower cancer fatalism were directly associated with higher uptake of FOBt screening and significantly mediated pathways from SES to uptake. Lower depression only had an indirect effect on uptake through better self-rated health. Efficacy beliefs did not mediate the relationship between SES and uptake.

CONCLUSION

SES differences in uptake of FOBt in England are partially explained by differences in cancer fatalism, self-rated health, and depression.

IMPACT

This is one of only a few studies to examine mediators of the relationship between SES and screening uptake, and future research could test the effectiveness of interventions to reduce fatalistic beliefs to increase equality of uptake.

Reactions to a targeted intervention to increase fecal occult blood testing among average-risk adults waiting for screening colonoscopy

BACKGROUND

Increasing demand combined with limited capacity has resulted in long wait times for average-risk adults referred for screening colonoscopy for colorectal cancer. Management of patients on these growing wait lists is an emerging clinical issue.

OBJECTIVE

To inform the content and design of a mailed targeted invitation for patients to undergo annual fecal occult blood testing (FOBT) while awaiting colonoscopy.

METHODS

Focus groups (FGs) with average-risk patients on a wait list for screening colonoscopy at a high-throughput academic outpatient colonoscopy facility were conducted. During each FG session, feedback regarding a range of materials under consideration for the planned intervention was elicited using a semistructured facilitator guide. The FG sessions were recorded and transcribed verbatim, and analyzed using the constant comparative method to identify key themes.

RESULTS

Findings from the three FGs (n=28) suggested that average risk patients on a wait list for screening colonoscopy would be receptive to a targeted intervention recommending they undergo FOBT while waiting. Participants indicated that the invitation to undergo FOBT was an important acknowledgement that they were on an actively managed list, and that a mechanism to ensure that they were correctly triaged while waiting was in place. Several specific suggestions to improve the design of the targeted intervention were obtained.

CONCLUSIONS

Results of the present study provide useful information for developing effective strategies to manage average-risk individuals facing long wait times for screening colonoscopy.

Responses to procedural information about colorectal cancer screening using faecal occult blood testing: the role of consideration of future consequences

BACKGROUND

Colorectal cancer (CRC) screening participation is low despite its effectiveness in reducing CRC mortality. Identifying benefits and barriers requires consideration of specific characteristics of screening modalities. AIMS AND RESEARCH QUESTIONS: To monitor the impact of providing information about CRC screening via faecal occult blood testing (FOBt) on intentions to participate. To investigate moderation by individual differences in consideration of future consequences (CFC).

DESIGN, SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS

A total of 211 healthy adults (aged 45-59) with no experience of CRC screening were presented with eight consecutive statements about FOBt-based screening in a web survey. Participants completed measures of i) intention (after each statement), ii) CFC and iii) the importance of screening practicalities (e.g. unpleasantness of completing the test) and benefits (e.g. early detection of cancer).

RESULTS

An 8 (information)×2 (CFC) mixed ancova showed that intentions varied across the eight statements. (P<0.001): increasing after information about FOBt being completed at home (P<0.001) before subsequently decreasing after information about the requirement to collect faecal samples (P<0.001) in a plastic tub (P<0.01) on three occasions (P<0.01) with the low CFC group generally being less inclined to complete the test (P<0.01). Two between-group anovas demonstrated that the low CFC group attributed greater importance to practicalities of screening than the high CFC group while the opposite was found for the importance of benefits (both P's<0.001).

CONCLUSION

Deconstructing FOBt-based screening pointed to specific benefits and barriers which can advance research into public preferences of screening and educational materials.

Assessing non-response to a mailed health survey including self-collection of biological material

BACKGROUND

Collection of biological material via mailed health surveys is an emerging trend. This study was conducted to assess non-response bias in a study of sexually transmitted infection utilizing self-collected, home-obtained specimens.

METHODS

Data from a nationwide administrative database on health care utilization together with data from a research study were used. The research study was an outreach screening programme including home-obtained, participant-collected, mail-delivered testing for Chlamydia trachomatis. A random sample of 1690 persons aged 18-35 years from the population registry was selected. Study materials (specimen collection kit, informed consent, questionnaire) were mailed in three waves.

RESULTS

The first mailing yielded a response rate of 18.5% (n = 259), the second 10.1% (n = 141) and the third 11.4% (n = 160). Women were more likely to respond than men, and responders were less likely to have had medical care in the past year and more likely to have had a prior sexually transmitted infection than non-responders. Chlamydia trachomatis infection rates tended to be higher in early responders. Late responders appeared more like non-responders in terms of demographic factors, health care utilization patterns and potential disease status.

CONCLUSION

Non-response in a health survey including biological material self-collection warrants research as it may differ from non-response in general health questionnaires.