4.6 Article

Repeat participation in colorectal cancer screening utilizing fecal occult blood testing: A community-based project in a rural setting

期刊

JOURNAL OF GASTROENTEROLOGY AND HEPATOLOGY
卷 25, 期 10, 页码 1661-1667

出版社

WILEY-BLACKWELL PUBLISHING, INC
DOI: 10.1111/j.1440-1746.2010.06405.x

关键词

colorectal neoplasms; mass screening; patient participation

资金

  1. Queensland Health
  2. Enterix

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background and Aim: To investigate participation in a second round of colorectal cancer screening using a fecal occult blood test (FOBT) in an Australian rural community, and to assess the demographic characteristics and individual perspectives associated with repeat screening. Methods: Potential participants from round 1 (50-74 years of age) were sent an intervention package and asked to return a completed FOBT (n = 3406). Doctors of participants testing positive referred to colonoscopy as appropriate. Following screening, 119 participants completed qualitative telephone interviews. Multivariable logistic regression models evaluated the association between round-2 participation and other variables. Results: Round-2 participation was 34.7%; the strongest predictor was participation in round 1. Repeat participants were more likely to be female; inconsistent screeners were more likely to be younger (aged 50-59 years). The proportion of positive FOBT was 12.7%, that of colonoscopy compliance was 98.6%, and the positive predictive value for cancer or adenoma of advanced pathology was 23.9%. Reasons for participation included testing as a precautionary measure or having family history/friends with colorectal cancer; reasons for non-participation included apathy or doctors' advice against screening. Conclusion: Participation was relatively low and consistent across rounds. Unless suitable strategies are identified to overcome behavioral trends and/or to screen out ineligible participants, little change in overall participation rates can be expected across rounds.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据