Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Mostrar: 20 | 50 | 100
Resultados 1 - 3 de 3
Filtrar
Mais filtros








Base de dados
Intervalo de ano de publicação
1.
BMJ Open ; 13(5): e066136, 2023 05 18.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-37202130

RESUMO

INTRODUCTION: Screening can reduce deaths from colorectal cancer (CRC). Despite high levels of public enthusiasm, participation rates in population CRC screening programmes internationally remain persistently below target levels. Simple behavioural interventions such as completion goals and planning tools may support participation among those inclined to be screened but who fail to act on their intentions. This study aims to evaluate the impact of: (a) a suggested deadline for return of the test; (b) a planning tool and (c) the combination of a deadline and planning tool on return of faecal immunochemical tests (FITs) for CRC screening. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: A randomised controlled trial of 40 000 adults invited to participate in the Scottish Bowel Screening Programme will assess the individual and combined impact of the interventions. Trial delivery will be integrated into the existing CRC screening process. The Scottish Bowel Screening Programme mails FITs to people aged 50-74 with brief instructions for completion and return. Participants will be randomised to one of eight groups: (1) no intervention; (2) suggested deadline (1 week); (3) suggested deadline (2 weeks); (4) suggested deadline (4 weeks); (5) planning tool; (6) planning tool plus suggested deadline (1 week); (7) planning tool plus suggested deadline (2 weeks); (8) planning tool plus suggested deadline (4 weeks). The primary outcome is return of the correctly completed FIT at 3 months. To understand the cognitive and behavioural mechanisms and to explore the acceptability of both interventions, we will survey (n=2000) and interview (n=40) a subgroup of trial participants. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The study has been approved by the National Health Service South Central-Hampshire B Research Ethics Committee (ref. 19/SC/0369). The findings will be disseminated through conference presentations and publication in peer-reviewed journals. Participants can request a summary of the results. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: clinicaltrials.govNCT05408169.


Assuntos
Neoplasias Colorretais , Medicina Estatal , Adulto , Humanos , Inquéritos e Questionários , Neoplasias Colorretais/diagnóstico , Terapia Comportamental , Emoções , Detecção Precoce de Câncer/métodos , Ensaios Clínicos Controlados Aleatórios como Assunto
2.
BMJ Open ; 12(9): e062738, 2022 09 05.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-36691140

RESUMO

OBJECTIVE: Colorectal screening using faecal immunochemical tests (FITs) can save lives if the people invited participate. In Scotland, most people intend to complete a FIT but this is not reflected in uptake rates. Planning interventions can bridge this intention-behaviour gap. To develop a tool supporting people willing to do colorectal screening with planning to complete a FIT, this study aimed to identify frequently experienced barriers and solutions to these barriers. DESIGN: This is a cross-sectional study. SETTING: Participants were recruited through the Scottish Bowel Screening Programme to complete a mailed questionnaire. PARTICIPANTS: The study included 2387 participants who had completed a FIT (mean age 65 years, 40% female) and 359 participants who had not completed a FIT but were inclined to do so (mean age 63 years, 39% female). OUTCOME MEASURES: The questionnaire assessed frequency of endorsement of colorectal screening barriers and solutions. RESULTS: Participants who had not completed a FIT endorsed significantly more barriers than those who had completed a FIT, when demographic, health and behavioural covariates were held constant (F(1,2053)=13.40, p<0.001, partial η2=0.01). Participants who completed a FIT endorsed significantly more solutions than those who did not (U=301 585.50, z=-3.21, p<0.001, r=0.06). This difference became insignificant when covariates were controlled. Participants agreed on the most common barriers and solutions regardless of screening history. Barriers included procrastination, forgetting, fear of the test result, screening anxiety, disgust and low self-efficacy. Solutions included hand-washing, doing the FIT in private, reading the FIT instructions, benefit of early detection, feelings of responsibility, high self-efficacy and seeing oneself as a person who looks after one's health. CONCLUSION: This survey identified six barriers and seven solutions as key content to include in the development of a planning tool for colorectal screening using the FIT. Participatory research is required to codesign an engaging and accessible planning tool.


Assuntos
Neoplasias Colorretais , Detecção Precoce de Câncer , Humanos , Feminino , Idoso , Pessoa de Meia-Idade , Masculino , Estudos Transversais , Escócia , Neoplasias Colorretais/diagnóstico , Sangue Oculto , Programas de Rastreamento
3.
Gut ; 70(1): 106-113, 2021 01.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-32234803

RESUMO

OBJECTIVE: Faecal immunochemical tests (FIT) are replacing guaiac faecal occult blood tests (FOBT) in colorectal cancer (CRC) screening. Data from the first year of FIT screening were compared with those from FOBT screening and assumptions based on a pilot evaluation of FIT. DESIGN: Data on uptake, positivity, positive predictive value (PPV) for CRC and higher-risk adenoma from participants in the first year of the FIT-based Scottish Bowel Screening Programme (n=919 665), with a threshold of 80 µg Hb/g faeces, were compared with those from the penultimate year of the FOBT-based programme (n=862 165) and those from the FIT evaluation (n=66 225). RESULTS: Overall, uptake of FIT was 63.9% compared with 56.4% for FOBT. Positivity was 3.1% and 2.2% with FIT and FOBT; increases were seen in both sexes, and across age range and deprivation. More CRC and adenomas were detected by FIT, but the PPV for CRC was less (5.2% with FIT and 6.4% with FOBT). However, for higher-risk adenoma, PPV was greater with FIT (24.3% with FIT and 19.3% with FOBT). In the previous FIT evaluation, uptake was 58.5% with FIT compared with 54.0% with FOBT; positivity was 2.5% with FIT and 2.0% with FOBT. CONCLUSION: Transition to FIT from FOBT produced higher uptake and positivity with lower PPV for CRC and higher PPV for adenoma. The FIT pilot evaluation underestimated uptake and positivity. Introducing FIT at the same threshold as the evaluation caused a 67.2% increase in colonoscopy demand instead of a predicted 10%.


Assuntos
Adenoma/diagnóstico , Neoplasias Colorretais/diagnóstico , Detecção Precoce de Câncer , Idoso , Fezes , Feminino , Guaiaco , Humanos , Imunoquímica , Indicadores e Reagentes , Masculino , Pessoa de Meia-Idade , Sangue Oculto , Valor Preditivo dos Testes
SELEÇÃO DE REFERÊNCIAS
DETALHE DA PESQUISA