Reasons For Lack of Follow-up Colonoscopy Among Persons With A Positive Fecal Occult Blood Test Result: A Qualitative Study.

OBJECTIVES: Follow-up colonoscopy rates among persons with positive fecal occult blood test results (FOBT + ) remain suboptimal in many jurisdictions. In Ontario, Canada, primary care providers (PCPs) are responsible for arranging follow-up colonoscopies. The objectives were to understand the reasons for a lack of follow-up colonoscopy and any action plans to address follow-up. METHODS: Semi-structured interviews were conducted with 30 FOBT+ persons and 30 PCPs in Ontario. Eligible FOBT+ persons were identified through administrative databases and included those aged 50-74, with a 6-12 month old FOBT+, no follow-up colonoscopy, and no prior colorectal cancer diagnosis or colectomy. Eligible PCPs had ≥1 rostered FOBT+ person without follow-up colonoscopy. Transcripts were analyzed inductively using Nvivo 11 (QSR International Pty Ltd., 2015). RESULTS: Reasons for lack of follow-up colonoscopy were: person and/or provider believed the FOBT + was a false positive; person was afraid of colonoscopy; person had other health issues; and breakdown in communication of FOBT+ results or colonoscopy appointments. PCPs who initially recommended follow-up colonoscopy did not change the minds of the persons who dismissed the FOBT+ as a false positive and/or who were afraid of the procedure. These FOBT+ persons negotiated an alternative follow-up action plan including repeating the FOBT or not following-up. CONCLUSIONS: PCPs may not adequately counsel FOBT+ persons who believe the FOBT+ is a false positive and/or fear colonoscopy. PCPs may lack fail-safe systems to communicate FOBT+ results and colonoscopy appointments. Using navigators may help address these barriers and increase follow-up rates.

Taxonomy for colorectal cancer screening promotion: Lessons from recent randomized controlled trials.

OBJECTIVE: To derive a taxonomy for colorectal cancer screening that advances Randomized Controlled Trials (RCTs) and screening uptake. DESIGN: Detailed publication review, multiple interviews with principal investigators (PIs) and collaboration with PIs as co-authors produced a CRCS intervention taxonomy. Semi-structured interview questions with PIs (Drs. Inadomi, Myers, Green, Gupta, Jerant and Ritvo) yielded details about trial conduct. Interview comparisons led to an iterative process informing serial interviews until a consensus was obtained on final taxonomy structure. RESULTS: These taxonomy headings (Engagement Sponsor, Population Targeted, Alternative Screening Tests, Delivery Methods, and Support for Test Performance (EPADS)) were used to compare studies. Exemplary insights emphasized: 1) direct test delivery to patients; 2) linguistic-ethnic matching of staff to minority subjects; and 3) authorization of navigators to schedule or refer for colonoscopies and/or distribute stool blood tests during screening promotion. CONCLUSION: PIs of key RCTs (2012-2015) derived a CRCS taxonomy useful in detailed examination of CRCS promotion and design of future RCTs.

Gender differences in attitudes impeding colorectal cancer screening.

BACKGROUND: Colorectal cancer screening (CRCS) is the only type of cancer screening where both genders reduce risks by similar proportions with identical procedures. It is an important context for examining gender differences in disease-prevention, as CRCS significantly reduces mortality via early detection and prevention. In efforts to increase screening adherence, there is increasing acknowledgment that obstructive attitudes prevent CRCS uptake. Precise identification of the gender differences in obstructive attitudes is necessary to improve uptake promotion. This study randomly sampled unscreened, screening - eligible individuals in Ontario, employing semi-structured interviews to elicit key differences in attitudinal obstructions towards colorectal cancer screening with the aim of deriving informative differences useful in planning promotions of screening uptake. METHODS: N = 81 participants (49 females, 32 males), 50 years and above, with no prior CRCS, were contacted via random-digit telephone dialing, and consented via phone-mail contact. Altogether, N = 4,459 calls were made to yield N = 85 participants (1.9% response rate) of which N = 4 participants did not complete interviews. All subjects were eligible for free-of-charge CRCS in Ontario, and each was classified, via standard interview by CRCS screening decision-stage. Telephone-based, semi-structured interviews (SSIs) were employed to investigate gender differences in CRCS attitudes, using questions focused on 5 attitudinal domains: 1) Screening experience at the time of interview; 2) Barriers to adherence; 3) Predictors of Adherence; 4) Pain-anxiety experiences related to CRCS; 5) Gender-specific experiences re: CRCS, addressing all three modalities accessible through Ontario's program: a) fecal occult blood testing; b) flexible sigmoidoscopy; c) colonoscopy. RESULTS: Interview transcript analyses indicated divergent themes related to CRCS for each gender: 1) bodily intrusion, 2) perforation anxiety, and 3) embarrassment for females and; 1) avoidant procrastination with underlying fatalism, 2) unnecessary health care and 3) uncomfortable vulnerability for males. Respondents adopted similar attitudes towards fecal occult blood testing, flexible sigmoidoscopy and colonoscopy, and were comparable in decision stage across tests. Gender differences were neither closely tied to screening stage nor modality. Women had more consistent physician relationships, were more screening-knowledgeable and better able to articulate views on screening. Men reported less consistent physician relationships, were less knowledgeable and kept decision-making processes vague and emotionally distanced (i.e. at 'arm's length'). CONCLUSIONS: Marked differences were observed in obstructive CRCS attitudes per gender. Females articulated reservations about CRCS-associated distress and males suppressed negative views while ambiguously procrastinating about the task of completing screening. Future interventions could seek to reduce CRCS-related stress (females) and address the need to overcome procrastination (males).

Effect of Temperature and Time on Fecal Hemoglobin Stability in 5 Fecal Immunochemical Test Methods and One Guaiac Method.

CONTEXT: - Although promising for colorectal cancer screening, hemoglobin (Hb) stability remains a concern with fecal immunochemical tests. This study implemented a novel, standardized method to compare Hb stability across various fecal immunochemical tests. The method can be used to inform decisions when selecting a kit for use in colorectal cancer screening. In so doing, this work addressed a critical need for standardization in this field. OBJECTIVE: - To compare the stability of Hb across 5 different immunochemical kits and one guaiac kit. DESIGN: - The stability of Hb was analyzed in collection devices inoculated with Hb-spiked feces and (1) stored at various temperatures (frozen, refrigerated, ambient, and elevated) for more than 60 days; (2) after undergoing 3 controlled, freeze-thaw cycles; and (3) after being transported by courier or postal services in uncontrolled temperature conditions from 3 locations in Ontario, Canada, to a central testing center. RESULTS: - The stability of Hb varied with time and temperature and by kit. Lower Hb recoveries occurred with increasing temperature and increasing time from sample collection to testing. Refrigeration provided the best stability, although results varied across kits (eg, from 4.2 days to >60 days before a prespecified threshold [<70% probability of the test results remaining positive] was reached). Freeze-thaw stability varied across kits and cycles (Hb recoveries: NS Plus [Alfresa Pharma, Chuo-ku, Osaka, Japan], 91.7% to 95.4%; OC Diana [Eiken Chemical, Taito-ku, Tokyo, Japan], 57.6% to 74.9%). Agreement regarding Hb levels before and after transportation varied across kits (from 57% to 100%). CONCLUSIONS: - Important differences in Hb stability were found across the included fecal immunochemical tests. These findings should inform practice-based and population-based colorectal cancer screening.

Personal navigation increases colorectal cancer screening uptake.

BACKGROUND: Prior randomized, controlled trials (RCTs) indicate that patient navigation can boost colorectal cancer screening rates in primary care. The sparse literature on pragmatic trials of interventions designed to increase colorectal cancer screening adherence motivated this trial on the impact of a patient navigation intervention that included support for performance of the participants' preferred screening test (colonoscopy or stool blood testing). MATERIALS AND METHODS: Primary care patients (n = 5,240), 50 to 74 years of age, with no prior diagnosis of bowel cancer and no record of a recent colorectal cancer screening test, were identified at the Group Health Centre in northern Ontario. These patients were randomly assigned to an intervention group (n = 2,629) or a usual care control group (n = 2,611). Intervention group participants were contacted by a trained nurse navigator by telephone to discuss colorectal cancer screening. Interested patients met with the navigator, who helped them identify and arrange for performance of the preferred screening test. Control group participants received usual care. Multivariate analyses were conducted using medical records data to assess intervention impact on screening adherence within 12 months after randomization. RESULTS: Mean patient age was 59 years, and 50% of participants were women. Colorectal cancer screening adherence was higher in the intervention group (35%) than in the control group (20%), a difference that was statistically significant (OR, 2.11; confidence interval, 1.87-2.39). CONCLUSION: Preference-based patient navigation increased screening uptake in a pragmatic RCT. IMPACT: Patient navigation increased colorectal cancer screening rates in a pragmatic RCT in proportions similar to those observed in explanatory RCTs.