Cargando…

Self-Reported And Objectively Recorded Colorectal Cancer Screening Participation In England

OBJECTIVE: To compare self-reported with objectively recorded participation in Faecal Occult Blood testing (FOBt) colorectal cancer (CRC) screening in a national programme. METHODS: Survey respondents living in England who were eligible for screening were asked in face-to-face interviews if they had...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Lo, Siu Hing, Waller, Jo, Vrinten, Charlotte, Wardle, Jane, von Wagner, Christian
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: SAGE Publications 2015
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4741296/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26408533
http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0969141315599015
_version_ 1782413976887361536
author Lo, Siu Hing
Waller, Jo
Vrinten, Charlotte
Wardle, Jane
von Wagner, Christian
author_facet Lo, Siu Hing
Waller, Jo
Vrinten, Charlotte
Wardle, Jane
von Wagner, Christian
author_sort Lo, Siu Hing
collection PubMed
description OBJECTIVE: To compare self-reported with objectively recorded participation in Faecal Occult Blood testing (FOBt) colorectal cancer (CRC) screening in a national programme. METHODS: Survey respondents living in England who were eligible for screening were asked in face-to-face interviews if they had ever been invited to do a CRC screening test, how many times they had been invited, and how many times they had participated. National Health Service (NHS) Bowel Cancer Screening Programme (BCSP) records were consulted for respondents who had consented to a record check. The outcome measures were ‘ever uptake’ (responded to ≥1 invitation), ‘repeat uptake’ (responded to ≥2 invitations), and ‘consistent uptake’ (responded to all invitations). RESULTS: In the verified group, self-reported ever uptake was highly consistent with recorded ever uptake (87.0% vs. 87.8%). Among those who indicated that they had been invited more than once, self-reported repeat uptake was 89.8% compared with 84.8% recorded repeat uptake. Among those with more than one recorded invitation, self-reported repeat uptake was 72.7% compared with 77.2% recorded repeat uptake, and self-reported consistent uptake was 81.6% compared with 65.6% recorded consistent uptake. CONCLUSION: Our results suggest that people can accurately report whether they have ever taken part in CRC screening. The vast majority of those whose records were verified could also accurately report whether they had taken part in screening at least twice. They were somewhat less accurate in reporting whether they had responded to all screening invitations.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-4741296
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2015
publisher SAGE Publications
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-47412962016-03-24 Self-Reported And Objectively Recorded Colorectal Cancer Screening Participation In England Lo, Siu Hing Waller, Jo Vrinten, Charlotte Wardle, Jane von Wagner, Christian J Med Screen Original Articles OBJECTIVE: To compare self-reported with objectively recorded participation in Faecal Occult Blood testing (FOBt) colorectal cancer (CRC) screening in a national programme. METHODS: Survey respondents living in England who were eligible for screening were asked in face-to-face interviews if they had ever been invited to do a CRC screening test, how many times they had been invited, and how many times they had participated. National Health Service (NHS) Bowel Cancer Screening Programme (BCSP) records were consulted for respondents who had consented to a record check. The outcome measures were ‘ever uptake’ (responded to ≥1 invitation), ‘repeat uptake’ (responded to ≥2 invitations), and ‘consistent uptake’ (responded to all invitations). RESULTS: In the verified group, self-reported ever uptake was highly consistent with recorded ever uptake (87.0% vs. 87.8%). Among those who indicated that they had been invited more than once, self-reported repeat uptake was 89.8% compared with 84.8% recorded repeat uptake. Among those with more than one recorded invitation, self-reported repeat uptake was 72.7% compared with 77.2% recorded repeat uptake, and self-reported consistent uptake was 81.6% compared with 65.6% recorded consistent uptake. CONCLUSION: Our results suggest that people can accurately report whether they have ever taken part in CRC screening. The vast majority of those whose records were verified could also accurately report whether they had taken part in screening at least twice. They were somewhat less accurate in reporting whether they had responded to all screening invitations. SAGE Publications 2015-09-25 2016-03 /pmc/articles/PMC4741296/ /pubmed/26408533 http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0969141315599015 Text en © The Author(s) 2015 http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/ This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 License (http://www.creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/) which permits any use, reproduction and distribution of the work without further permission provided the original work is attributed as specified on the SAGE and Open Access page (https://us.sagepub.com/en-us/nam/open-access-at-sage).
spellingShingle Original Articles
Lo, Siu Hing
Waller, Jo
Vrinten, Charlotte
Wardle, Jane
von Wagner, Christian
Self-Reported And Objectively Recorded Colorectal Cancer Screening Participation In England
title Self-Reported And Objectively Recorded Colorectal Cancer Screening Participation In England
title_full Self-Reported And Objectively Recorded Colorectal Cancer Screening Participation In England
title_fullStr Self-Reported And Objectively Recorded Colorectal Cancer Screening Participation In England
title_full_unstemmed Self-Reported And Objectively Recorded Colorectal Cancer Screening Participation In England
title_short Self-Reported And Objectively Recorded Colorectal Cancer Screening Participation In England
title_sort self-reported and objectively recorded colorectal cancer screening participation in england
topic Original Articles
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4741296/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26408533
http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0969141315599015
work_keys_str_mv AT losiuhing selfreportedandobjectivelyrecordedcolorectalcancerscreeningparticipationinengland
AT wallerjo selfreportedandobjectivelyrecordedcolorectalcancerscreeningparticipationinengland
AT vrintencharlotte selfreportedandobjectivelyrecordedcolorectalcancerscreeningparticipationinengland
AT wardlejane selfreportedandobjectivelyrecordedcolorectalcancerscreeningparticipationinengland
AT vonwagnerchristian selfreportedandobjectivelyrecordedcolorectalcancerscreeningparticipationinengland