4.1 Article

Self-Reported And Objectively Recorded Colorectal Cancer Screening Participation In England

Journal

JOURNAL OF MEDICAL SCREENING
Volume 23, Issue 1, Pages 17-23

Publisher

SAGE PUBLICATIONS LTD
DOI: 10.1177/0969141315599015

Keywords

Colorectal cancer screening; self-reported uptake; objectively recorded uptake; over-reporting; under-reporting

Funding

  1. Cancer Research UK programme grant [C1418/A414134]
  2. Cancer Research UK [14134] Funding Source: researchfish

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Objective: To compare self-reported with objectively recorded participation in Faecal Occult Blood testing (FOBt) colorectal cancer (CRC) screening in a national programme. Methods: Survey respondents living in England who were eligible for screening were asked in face-to-face interviews if they had ever been invited to do a CRC screening test, how many times they had been invited, and how many times they had participated. National Health Service (NHS) Bowel Cancer Screening Programme (BCSP) records were consulted for respondents who had consented to a record check. The outcome measures were ever uptake' (responded to 1 invitation), repeat uptake' (responded to 2 invitations), and consistent uptake' (responded to all invitations). Results: In the verified group, self-reported ever uptake was highly consistent with recorded ever uptake (87.0% vs. 87.8%). Among those who indicated that they had been invited more than once, self-reported repeat uptake was 89.8% compared with 84.8% recorded repeat uptake. Among those with more than one recorded invitation, self-reported repeat uptake was 72.7% compared with 77.2% recorded repeat uptake, and self-reported consistent uptake was 81.6% compared with 65.6% recorded consistent uptake. Conclusion: Our results suggest that people can accurately report whether they have ever taken part in CRC screening. The vast majority of those whose records were verified could also accurately report whether they had taken part in screening at least twice. They were somewhat less accurate in reporting whether they had responded to all screening invitations.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.1
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available