4.4 Article

Community-based survey of knowledge of, attitudes to and practice of colorectal cancer screening in Hong Kong

Journal

JOURNAL OF DIGESTIVE DISEASES
Volume 18, Issue 10, Pages 582-590

Publisher

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/1751-2980.12544

Keywords

colorectal neoplasms; community health planning; Hong Kong; mass screening; surveys; questionnaires

Ask authors/readers for more resources

OBJECTIVE: We aimed to investigate the knowledge, attitudes and practice of colorectal cancer (CRC) and screening in the community to complement the introduction of population-based CRC screening in Hong Kong SAR, China. METHODS: Clients attending the Family Planning Association of Hong Kong clinics from March to June 2016 were randomly invited to participate in this questionnaire survey. RESULTS: Knowledge of CRC and screening for it was still deficient in the community. Respondents scored less than half on their knowledge of the symptoms and screening methods of CRC as well as on the local screening policy. Fewer than 30% knew that CRC can be asymptomatic and they had insufficient knowledge of primary lifestyle prevention of CRC. However, most (86.0%) would like to participate in CRC screening. The cost and trouble involved were the two main reasons given for not wanting to do so. Only 14.0% of the whole sample and 27.0% of those aged 50 years or above had undergone CRC screening irrespective of screening method. One-fifth of those who had been screened had some abnormality, with a cancer detection rate of 2.2%. Employment, income, knowledge and perception of risk were major determinants of their decision to undergo screening. CONCLUSIONS: To reduce the morbidity and mortality of CRC significantly, average risk and high-risk groups should be encouraged to come forward for screening even if they are asymptomatic. Educating the population, simplifying the screening procedure and offering financial support by the government are keys to success.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.4
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available