Cargando…

Barriers to bowel scope (flexible sigmoidoscopy) screening: a comparison of non-responders, active decliners and non-attenders

BACKGROUND: Participation in bowel scope screening (BSS) is low (43%), limiting its potential to reduce colorectal cancer (CRC) incidence and mortality. This study aimed to quantify the prevalence of barriers to BSS and examine the extent to which these barriers differed according to non-participant...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: von Wagner, Christian, Bonello, Bernardette, Stoffel, Sandro, Skrobanski, Hanna, Freeman, Madeleine, Kerrison, Robert S, McGregor, Lesley M
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BioMed Central 2018
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6173878/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30290783
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12889-018-6071-8
_version_ 1783361203184074752
author von Wagner, Christian
Bonello, Bernardette
Stoffel, Sandro
Skrobanski, Hanna
Freeman, Madeleine
Kerrison, Robert S
McGregor, Lesley M
author_facet von Wagner, Christian
Bonello, Bernardette
Stoffel, Sandro
Skrobanski, Hanna
Freeman, Madeleine
Kerrison, Robert S
McGregor, Lesley M
author_sort von Wagner, Christian
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: Participation in bowel scope screening (BSS) is low (43%), limiting its potential to reduce colorectal cancer (CRC) incidence and mortality. This study aimed to quantify the prevalence of barriers to BSS and examine the extent to which these barriers differed according to non-participant profiles: non-responders to the BSS invitation, active decliners of the invitation, and non-attenders of confirmed appointments. METHODS: Individuals invited for BSS between March 2013 and December 2015, across 28 General Practices in England, were sent a questionnaire. Questions measured initial interest in BSS, engagement with the information booklet, BSS participation, and, where applicable, reasons for BSS non-attendance. Chi-square tests of independence were performed to examine the relationship between barriers, non-participant groups and socio-demographic variables. RESULTS: 1478 (45.8%) questionnaires were returned for analysis: 1230 (83.2%) attended screening, 114 (7.7%) were non-responders to the BSS invitation, 100 (6.8%) were active decliners, and 34 (2.3%) were non-attenders. Non-responders were less likely to have read the whole information booklet than active decliners (x(2) (2, N = 157) = 7.00, p = 0.008) and non-attenders (x(2) (2, N = 101) = 8.07, p = 0.005). Non-responders also had lower initial interest in having BSS than either active decliners (x(2) (2, N = 213) = 6.07, p = 0.014) or non-attenders (x(2) (2, N = 146) = 32.93, p < 0.001). Overall, anticipated pain (33%) and embarrassment (30%) were the most commonly cited barriers to BSS participation. For non-attenders, however, practical, appointment-related reasons were most common (27%). CONCLUSIONS: Interventions to improve BSS uptake should be more nuanced and use targeted strategies to address the specific needs of each group.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-6173878
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2018
publisher BioMed Central
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-61738782018-10-15 Barriers to bowel scope (flexible sigmoidoscopy) screening: a comparison of non-responders, active decliners and non-attenders von Wagner, Christian Bonello, Bernardette Stoffel, Sandro Skrobanski, Hanna Freeman, Madeleine Kerrison, Robert S McGregor, Lesley M BMC Public Health Research Article BACKGROUND: Participation in bowel scope screening (BSS) is low (43%), limiting its potential to reduce colorectal cancer (CRC) incidence and mortality. This study aimed to quantify the prevalence of barriers to BSS and examine the extent to which these barriers differed according to non-participant profiles: non-responders to the BSS invitation, active decliners of the invitation, and non-attenders of confirmed appointments. METHODS: Individuals invited for BSS between March 2013 and December 2015, across 28 General Practices in England, were sent a questionnaire. Questions measured initial interest in BSS, engagement with the information booklet, BSS participation, and, where applicable, reasons for BSS non-attendance. Chi-square tests of independence were performed to examine the relationship between barriers, non-participant groups and socio-demographic variables. RESULTS: 1478 (45.8%) questionnaires were returned for analysis: 1230 (83.2%) attended screening, 114 (7.7%) were non-responders to the BSS invitation, 100 (6.8%) were active decliners, and 34 (2.3%) were non-attenders. Non-responders were less likely to have read the whole information booklet than active decliners (x(2) (2, N = 157) = 7.00, p = 0.008) and non-attenders (x(2) (2, N = 101) = 8.07, p = 0.005). Non-responders also had lower initial interest in having BSS than either active decliners (x(2) (2, N = 213) = 6.07, p = 0.014) or non-attenders (x(2) (2, N = 146) = 32.93, p < 0.001). Overall, anticipated pain (33%) and embarrassment (30%) were the most commonly cited barriers to BSS participation. For non-attenders, however, practical, appointment-related reasons were most common (27%). CONCLUSIONS: Interventions to improve BSS uptake should be more nuanced and use targeted strategies to address the specific needs of each group. BioMed Central 2018-10-05 /pmc/articles/PMC6173878/ /pubmed/30290783 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12889-018-6071-8 Text en © The Author(s). 2018 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
von Wagner, Christian
Bonello, Bernardette
Stoffel, Sandro
Skrobanski, Hanna
Freeman, Madeleine
Kerrison, Robert S
McGregor, Lesley M
Barriers to bowel scope (flexible sigmoidoscopy) screening: a comparison of non-responders, active decliners and non-attenders
title Barriers to bowel scope (flexible sigmoidoscopy) screening: a comparison of non-responders, active decliners and non-attenders
title_full Barriers to bowel scope (flexible sigmoidoscopy) screening: a comparison of non-responders, active decliners and non-attenders
title_fullStr Barriers to bowel scope (flexible sigmoidoscopy) screening: a comparison of non-responders, active decliners and non-attenders
title_full_unstemmed Barriers to bowel scope (flexible sigmoidoscopy) screening: a comparison of non-responders, active decliners and non-attenders
title_short Barriers to bowel scope (flexible sigmoidoscopy) screening: a comparison of non-responders, active decliners and non-attenders
title_sort barriers to bowel scope (flexible sigmoidoscopy) screening: a comparison of non-responders, active decliners and non-attenders
topic Research Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6173878/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30290783
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12889-018-6071-8
work_keys_str_mv AT vonwagnerchristian barrierstobowelscopeflexiblesigmoidoscopyscreeningacomparisonofnonrespondersactivedeclinersandnonattenders
AT bonellobernardette barrierstobowelscopeflexiblesigmoidoscopyscreeningacomparisonofnonrespondersactivedeclinersandnonattenders
AT stoffelsandro barrierstobowelscopeflexiblesigmoidoscopyscreeningacomparisonofnonrespondersactivedeclinersandnonattenders
AT skrobanskihanna barrierstobowelscopeflexiblesigmoidoscopyscreeningacomparisonofnonrespondersactivedeclinersandnonattenders
AT freemanmadeleine barrierstobowelscopeflexiblesigmoidoscopyscreeningacomparisonofnonrespondersactivedeclinersandnonattenders
AT kerrisonroberts barrierstobowelscopeflexiblesigmoidoscopyscreeningacomparisonofnonrespondersactivedeclinersandnonattenders
AT mcgregorlesleym barrierstobowelscopeflexiblesigmoidoscopyscreeningacomparisonofnonrespondersactivedeclinersandnonattenders