Why colorectal screening fails to achieve the uptake rates of breast and cervical cancer screening: a comparative qualitative study

TY - JOUR

T1 - Why colorectal screening fails to achieve the uptake rates of breast and cervical cancer screening

T2 - a comparative qualitative study

AU - Kotzur, Marie

AU - McCowan, Colin

AU - Macdonald, Sara

AU - Wyke, Sally

AU - Gatting, Lauren

AU - Campbell, Christine

AU - Weller, David

AU - Crighton, Emilia

AU - Steele, Robert J. C.

AU - Robb, Kathryn A.

N1 - © Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2019. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.

PY - 2020/5/20

Y1 - 2020/5/20

N2 - Background: In Scotland, the uptake of clinic-based breast (72%) and cervical (77%) screening is higher than home-based colorectal screening (~60%). To inform new approaches to increase uptake of colorectal screening, we compared the perceptions of colorectal screening among women with different screening histories.Methods: We purposively sampled women with different screening histories to invite to semistructured interviews: (1) participated in all; (2) participated in breast and cervical but not colorectal ('colorectal-specific non-participants'); (3) participated in none. To identify the sample we linked the data for all women eligible for all three screening programmes in Glasgow, Scotland (aged 51-64 years; n=68 324). Interviews covered perceptions of cancer, screening and screening decisions. Framework method was used for analysis.Results: Of the 2924 women invited, 86 expressed an interest, and 59 were interviewed. The three groups' perceptions differed, with the colorectal-specific non-participants expressing that: (1) treatment for colorectal cancer is more severe than for breast or cervical cancer; (2) colorectal symptoms are easier to self-detect than breast or cervical symptoms; (3) they worried about completing the test incorrectly; and (4) the colorectal test could be more easily delayed or forgotten than breast or cervical screening.Conclusion: Our comparative approach suggested targets for future interventions to increase colorectal screening uptake including: (1) reducing fear of colorectal cancer treatments; (2) increasing awareness that screening is for the asymptomatic; (3) increasing confidence to self-complete the test; and (4) providing a suggested deadline and/or additional reminders.

AB - Background: In Scotland, the uptake of clinic-based breast (72%) and cervical (77%) screening is higher than home-based colorectal screening (~60%). To inform new approaches to increase uptake of colorectal screening, we compared the perceptions of colorectal screening among women with different screening histories.Methods: We purposively sampled women with different screening histories to invite to semistructured interviews: (1) participated in all; (2) participated in breast and cervical but not colorectal ('colorectal-specific non-participants'); (3) participated in none. To identify the sample we linked the data for all women eligible for all three screening programmes in Glasgow, Scotland (aged 51-64 years; n=68 324). Interviews covered perceptions of cancer, screening and screening decisions. Framework method was used for analysis.Results: Of the 2924 women invited, 86 expressed an interest, and 59 were interviewed. The three groups' perceptions differed, with the colorectal-specific non-participants expressing that: (1) treatment for colorectal cancer is more severe than for breast or cervical cancer; (2) colorectal symptoms are easier to self-detect than breast or cervical symptoms; (3) they worried about completing the test incorrectly; and (4) the colorectal test could be more easily delayed or forgotten than breast or cervical screening.Conclusion: Our comparative approach suggested targets for future interventions to increase colorectal screening uptake including: (1) reducing fear of colorectal cancer treatments; (2) increasing awareness that screening is for the asymptomatic; (3) increasing confidence to self-complete the test; and (4) providing a suggested deadline and/or additional reminders.

U2 - 10.1136/bmjqs-2019-009998

DO - 10.1136/bmjqs-2019-009998

M3 - Article

C2 - 31879320

SN - 2044-5415

SP - 482

EP - 490

JO - BMJ Quality & Safety

JF - BMJ Quality & Safety

ER -