Cargando…

Is an opportunistic primary care-based intervention for non-responders to bowel screening feasible and acceptable? A mixed-methods feasibility study in Scotland

OBJECTIVES: We aimed to test whether a brief, opportunistic intervention in general practice was a feasible and acceptable way to engage with bowel screening non-responders. DESIGN: This was a feasibility study testing an intervention which comprised a brief conversation during routine consultation,...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Calanzani, Natalia, Cavers, Debbie, Vojt, Gabriele, Orbell, Sheina, Steele, Robert J C, Brownlee, Linda, Smith, Steve, Patnick, Julietta, Weller, David, Campbell, Christine
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BMJ Publishing Group 2017
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5652541/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29025829
http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2017-016307
Descripción
Sumario:OBJECTIVES: We aimed to test whether a brief, opportunistic intervention in general practice was a feasible and acceptable way to engage with bowel screening non-responders. DESIGN: This was a feasibility study testing an intervention which comprised a brief conversation during routine consultation, provision of a patient leaflet and instructions to request a replacement faecal occult blood test kit. A mixed-methods approach to evaluation was adopted. Data were collected from proformas completed after each intervention, from the Bowel Screening Centre database and from questionnaires. Semi-structured interviews were carried out. We used descriptive statistics, content and framework analysis to determine intervention feasibility and acceptability. PARTICIPANTS: Bowel screening non-responders (as defined by the Scottish Bowel Screening Centre) and primary care professionals working in five general practices in Lothian, Scotland. PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES: Several predefined feasibility parameters were assessed, including numbers of patients engaging in conversation, requesting a replacement kit and returning it, and willingness of primary care professionals to deliver the intervention. RESULTS: The intervention was offered to 258 patients in five general practices: 220 (87.0%) engaged with the intervention, 60 (23.3%) requested a new kit, 22 (8.5%) kits were completed and returned. Interviews and questionnaires suggest that the intervention was feasible, acceptable and consistent with an existing health prevention agenda. Reported challenges referred to work-related pressures, time constraints and practice priorities. CONCLUSIONS: This intervention was acceptable and resulted in a modest increase in non-responders participating in bowel screening, although outlined challenges may affect sustained implementation. The strategy is also aligned with the increasing role of primary care in promoting bowel screening.