4.1 Article

Factors affecting compliance in faecal occult blood testing: a cluster randomized study of the faecal immunochemical test versus the guaiac faecal occult test

期刊

JOURNAL OF MEDICAL SCREENING
卷 18, 期 3, 页码 135-141

出版社

ROYAL SOC MEDICINE PRESS LTD
DOI: 10.1258/jms.2011.010147

关键词

-

资金

  1. Eiken Japan

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objective To compare the uptake of faecal immunochemical occult blood test (FIT) with guaiac Faecal occult blood test (gFOBT) in a screening programme, with specific attention to the demographic and socioeconomic factors that might affect test uptake. Setting The Clalit Health Service screening programme, Israel. Methods Average-risk individuals aged 50-75 years were randomized into a FIT arm or gFOBT arm using a programme based on the socioeconomic status (SES) of their primary care clinics. G-FOBT was performed with Hemoccult SENSA (TM) (3 evacuations) and FIT with the OC-MICRO (TM) (3 evacuations, refrigerating mandated). The GLIMMIX model was used. Results There were 5,464 and 10,668 eligible participants in the FIT and gFOBT arms respectively. Compliance in taking the kits was better (but not statistically significantly better) with gFOBT (37.8% vs. 29.3%; odds ratio [OR] 1.43 [95% Cl 0.73-2.80]; P= 0.227). Kit return was higher in the FIT arm (65.0% vs. 78.9%; OR 0.45 [95% Cl 0.24-0.83], P = 0.021). Overall test uptake was affected by age, gender, being immigrant and SES (determined by whether or not the participant paid national insurance tax, and the SES of the primary care clinic). The overall uptake of gFOBT and FIT was comparable (OR 0.996 [95% Cl 0.46-2.17], P = 0.99). Conclusions Overall compliance for test uptake was comparable between the two methods despite the more demanding procedure in the FIT arm. Sociodemographic parameters were the major determinants of compliance. An educational programme, with emphasis on the sociodemographic characteristics of the target population, should be instigated.

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

4.1
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