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,...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , , , , |
---|---|
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 |
_version_ | 1783273077622177792 |
---|---|
author | Calanzani, Natalia Cavers, Debbie Vojt, Gabriele Orbell, Sheina Steele, Robert J C Brownlee, Linda Smith, Steve Patnick, Julietta Weller, David Campbell, Christine |
author_facet | Calanzani, Natalia Cavers, Debbie Vojt, Gabriele Orbell, Sheina Steele, Robert J C Brownlee, Linda Smith, Steve Patnick, Julietta Weller, David Campbell, Christine |
author_sort | Calanzani, Natalia |
collection | PubMed |
description | 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. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-5652541 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2017 |
publisher | BMJ Publishing Group |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-56525412017-10-27 Is an opportunistic primary care-based intervention for non-responders to bowel screening feasible and acceptable? A mixed-methods feasibility study in Scotland Calanzani, Natalia Cavers, Debbie Vojt, Gabriele Orbell, Sheina Steele, Robert J C Brownlee, Linda Smith, Steve Patnick, Julietta Weller, David Campbell, Christine BMJ Open Health Services Research 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. BMJ Publishing Group 2017-10-11 /pmc/articles/PMC5652541/ /pubmed/29025829 http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2017-016307 Text en © Article author(s) (or their employer(s) unless otherwise stated in the text of the article) 2017. All rights reserved. No commercial use is permitted unless otherwise expressly granted. This is an Open Access article distributed in accordance with the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY 4.0) license, which permits others to distribute, remix, adapt and build upon this work, for commercial use, provided the original work is properly cited. See: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ |
spellingShingle | Health Services Research Calanzani, Natalia Cavers, Debbie Vojt, Gabriele Orbell, Sheina Steele, Robert J C Brownlee, Linda Smith, Steve Patnick, Julietta Weller, David Campbell, Christine Is an opportunistic primary care-based intervention for non-responders to bowel screening feasible and acceptable? A mixed-methods feasibility study in Scotland |
title | Is an opportunistic primary care-based intervention for non-responders to bowel screening feasible and acceptable? A mixed-methods feasibility study in Scotland |
title_full | Is an opportunistic primary care-based intervention for non-responders to bowel screening feasible and acceptable? A mixed-methods feasibility study in Scotland |
title_fullStr | Is an opportunistic primary care-based intervention for non-responders to bowel screening feasible and acceptable? A mixed-methods feasibility study in Scotland |
title_full_unstemmed | Is an opportunistic primary care-based intervention for non-responders to bowel screening feasible and acceptable? A mixed-methods feasibility study in Scotland |
title_short | Is an opportunistic primary care-based intervention for non-responders to bowel screening feasible and acceptable? A mixed-methods feasibility study in Scotland |
title_sort | is an opportunistic primary care-based intervention for non-responders to bowel screening feasible and acceptable? a mixed-methods feasibility study in scotland |
topic | Health Services Research |
url | 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 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT calanzaninatalia isanopportunisticprimarycarebasedinterventionfornonresponderstobowelscreeningfeasibleandacceptableamixedmethodsfeasibilitystudyinscotland AT caversdebbie isanopportunisticprimarycarebasedinterventionfornonresponderstobowelscreeningfeasibleandacceptableamixedmethodsfeasibilitystudyinscotland AT vojtgabriele isanopportunisticprimarycarebasedinterventionfornonresponderstobowelscreeningfeasibleandacceptableamixedmethodsfeasibilitystudyinscotland AT orbellsheina isanopportunisticprimarycarebasedinterventionfornonresponderstobowelscreeningfeasibleandacceptableamixedmethodsfeasibilitystudyinscotland AT steelerobertjc isanopportunisticprimarycarebasedinterventionfornonresponderstobowelscreeningfeasibleandacceptableamixedmethodsfeasibilitystudyinscotland AT brownleelinda isanopportunisticprimarycarebasedinterventionfornonresponderstobowelscreeningfeasibleandacceptableamixedmethodsfeasibilitystudyinscotland AT smithsteve isanopportunisticprimarycarebasedinterventionfornonresponderstobowelscreeningfeasibleandacceptableamixedmethodsfeasibilitystudyinscotland AT patnickjulietta isanopportunisticprimarycarebasedinterventionfornonresponderstobowelscreeningfeasibleandacceptableamixedmethodsfeasibilitystudyinscotland AT wellerdavid isanopportunisticprimarycarebasedinterventionfornonresponderstobowelscreeningfeasibleandacceptableamixedmethodsfeasibilitystudyinscotland AT campbellchristine isanopportunisticprimarycarebasedinterventionfornonresponderstobowelscreeningfeasibleandacceptableamixedmethodsfeasibilitystudyinscotland |