Cargando…
A lack of information engagement among colorectal cancer screening non-attenders: cross-sectional survey
BACKGROUND: The NHS Cancer Screening Programmes in England now operate a policy of ‘informed choice’ about participation in cancer screening. Engagement with written information about screening is important to facilitate informed choice, although the degree to which the screening-eligible public eng...
Autores principales: | , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
BioMed Central
2016
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4966703/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27473593 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12889-016-3374-5 |
_version_ | 1782445415791067136 |
---|---|
author | Kobayashi, Lindsay C. Waller, Jo von Wagner, Christian Wardle, Jane |
author_facet | Kobayashi, Lindsay C. Waller, Jo von Wagner, Christian Wardle, Jane |
author_sort | Kobayashi, Lindsay C. |
collection | PubMed |
description | BACKGROUND: The NHS Cancer Screening Programmes in England now operate a policy of ‘informed choice’ about participation in cancer screening. Engagement with written information about screening is important to facilitate informed choice, although the degree to which the screening-eligible public engages with the available information is unknown. We examined the association between reading of the standard informational booklet (‘Bowel Cancer Screening: The Facts') and participation in the nationally organised NHS Bowel Cancer Screening Programme in England. METHODS: Face-to-face interviews were conducted with 1307 adults who were age-eligible for nationally organised colorectal cancer (CRC; also called bowel cancer) in a population-based survey in England in 2014. Respondents were shown an image of ‘The Facts’ booklet and were asked how much of it they had read when they received their screening invitation (‘none’, ‘a little’, ‘some’, ‘most’, ‘almost all’, or ‘all’). Logistic regression was used to estimate the associations between screening uptake status (‘never’ vs. ‘ever’) and self-reported reading of ‘The Facts’ booklet (dichotomised to ‘none vs. ‘any’), adjusting for age, sex, ethnicity, educational attainment, and occupation-based social grade. RESULTS: Overall, 69 % of the sample (908/1307) had participated in CRC screening at least once (‘ever’ screeners). One-fifth of the sample reported that they had read ‘none’ of ‘The Facts’ booklet (22 %; 287/1307), while half reported having read ‘all’ of it (52 %; 680/1307). Reading of the booklet was strongly differential according to screening uptake status: nearly two-thirds of ‘never’ screeners had read none of ‘The Facts’ booklet (63 %; 251/399), compared to less than one in twenty ‘ever’ screeners (4 %; 36/908); adjusted OR = 39.0; 95 % CI: 26.2-58.1 for reading ‘none’ in ‘never’ vs. ‘ever’ screeners. CONCLUSIONS: Although ‘The Facts’ booklet is intended to support informed choices about CRC screening, the majority of unscreened individuals report that they have read none of it. The degree to which public engagement with the decision-making process about cancer screening is socially unequal must be better understood so that comprehensive and equitable public communication strategies can be developed. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-4966703 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2016 |
publisher | BioMed Central |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-49667032016-07-30 A lack of information engagement among colorectal cancer screening non-attenders: cross-sectional survey Kobayashi, Lindsay C. Waller, Jo von Wagner, Christian Wardle, Jane BMC Public Health Research Article BACKGROUND: The NHS Cancer Screening Programmes in England now operate a policy of ‘informed choice’ about participation in cancer screening. Engagement with written information about screening is important to facilitate informed choice, although the degree to which the screening-eligible public engages with the available information is unknown. We examined the association between reading of the standard informational booklet (‘Bowel Cancer Screening: The Facts') and participation in the nationally organised NHS Bowel Cancer Screening Programme in England. METHODS: Face-to-face interviews were conducted with 1307 adults who were age-eligible for nationally organised colorectal cancer (CRC; also called bowel cancer) in a population-based survey in England in 2014. Respondents were shown an image of ‘The Facts’ booklet and were asked how much of it they had read when they received their screening invitation (‘none’, ‘a little’, ‘some’, ‘most’, ‘almost all’, or ‘all’). Logistic regression was used to estimate the associations between screening uptake status (‘never’ vs. ‘ever’) and self-reported reading of ‘The Facts’ booklet (dichotomised to ‘none vs. ‘any’), adjusting for age, sex, ethnicity, educational attainment, and occupation-based social grade. RESULTS: Overall, 69 % of the sample (908/1307) had participated in CRC screening at least once (‘ever’ screeners). One-fifth of the sample reported that they had read ‘none’ of ‘The Facts’ booklet (22 %; 287/1307), while half reported having read ‘all’ of it (52 %; 680/1307). Reading of the booklet was strongly differential according to screening uptake status: nearly two-thirds of ‘never’ screeners had read none of ‘The Facts’ booklet (63 %; 251/399), compared to less than one in twenty ‘ever’ screeners (4 %; 36/908); adjusted OR = 39.0; 95 % CI: 26.2-58.1 for reading ‘none’ in ‘never’ vs. ‘ever’ screeners. CONCLUSIONS: Although ‘The Facts’ booklet is intended to support informed choices about CRC screening, the majority of unscreened individuals report that they have read none of it. The degree to which public engagement with the decision-making process about cancer screening is socially unequal must be better understood so that comprehensive and equitable public communication strategies can be developed. BioMed Central 2016-07-29 /pmc/articles/PMC4966703/ /pubmed/27473593 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12889-016-3374-5 Text en © The Author(s). 2016 Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated. |
spellingShingle | Research Article Kobayashi, Lindsay C. Waller, Jo von Wagner, Christian Wardle, Jane A lack of information engagement among colorectal cancer screening non-attenders: cross-sectional survey |
title | A lack of information engagement among colorectal cancer screening non-attenders: cross-sectional survey |
title_full | A lack of information engagement among colorectal cancer screening non-attenders: cross-sectional survey |
title_fullStr | A lack of information engagement among colorectal cancer screening non-attenders: cross-sectional survey |
title_full_unstemmed | A lack of information engagement among colorectal cancer screening non-attenders: cross-sectional survey |
title_short | A lack of information engagement among colorectal cancer screening non-attenders: cross-sectional survey |
title_sort | lack of information engagement among colorectal cancer screening non-attenders: cross-sectional survey |
topic | Research Article |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4966703/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27473593 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12889-016-3374-5 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT kobayashilindsayc alackofinformationengagementamongcolorectalcancerscreeningnonattenderscrosssectionalsurvey AT wallerjo alackofinformationengagementamongcolorectalcancerscreeningnonattenderscrosssectionalsurvey AT vonwagnerchristian alackofinformationengagementamongcolorectalcancerscreeningnonattenderscrosssectionalsurvey AT wardlejane alackofinformationengagementamongcolorectalcancerscreeningnonattenderscrosssectionalsurvey AT kobayashilindsayc lackofinformationengagementamongcolorectalcancerscreeningnonattenderscrosssectionalsurvey AT wallerjo lackofinformationengagementamongcolorectalcancerscreeningnonattenderscrosssectionalsurvey AT vonwagnerchristian lackofinformationengagementamongcolorectalcancerscreeningnonattenderscrosssectionalsurvey AT wardlejane lackofinformationengagementamongcolorectalcancerscreeningnonattenderscrosssectionalsurvey |