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
_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