Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
"Rescue" of Nonparticipants in Colorectal Cancer Screening: A Randomized Controlled Trial of Three Noninvasive Test Options.
Young, Graeme Paul; Chen, Gang; Wilson, Carlene J; McGrane, Ellen; Hughes-Barton, Donna Lee-Ann; Flight, Ingrid Helen K; Symonds, Erin Leigh.
Afiliação
  • Young GP; Flinders Centre for Innovation in Cancer, Flinders Medical Centre, Bedford Park, South Australia, Australia. graeme.young@flinders.edu.au.
  • Chen G; Cancer Research, Flinders Health and Medical Research Institute, Flinders University, Adelaide, South Australia, Australia.
  • Wilson CJ; Centre for Health Economics, Monash University, Caufield East, Victoria, Australia.
  • McGrane E; Cancer Research, Flinders Health and Medical Research Institute, Flinders University, Adelaide, South Australia, Australia.
  • Hughes-Barton DL; School of Psychology and Public Health, LaTrobe University, Bundoora, Victoria, Australia.
  • Flight IHK; School of Health and Related Research, University of Sheffield, Sheffield, United Kingdom.
  • Symonds EL; Cancer Research, Flinders Health and Medical Research Institute, Flinders University, Adelaide, South Australia, Australia.
Cancer Prev Res (Phila) ; 14(8): 803-810, 2021 08.
Article em En | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-34127509
ABSTRACT
Few studies have directly targeted nonparticipants in colorectal cancer screening to identify effective engagement strategies. We undertook a randomized controlled trial that targeted nonparticipants in a previous trial of average-risk subjects which compared participation rates for mailed invitations offering a fecal test, a blood test or a choice of either. Nonparticipants (n = 899) were randomized to be offered a kit containing a fecal immunochemical test (FIT), directions on how to arrange a blood DNA test, or the option of doing either. Screening participation was assessed 12 weeks after the offer. To assess the cognitive and attitudinal variables related to participation and invitee choice, invitees were surveyed after 12 weeks, and associations were investigated using multinomial logistic regression. Participation rates were similar between groups (P = 0.88) 12.0% for FIT (35/292), 13.3% for the blood test (39/293), and 13.4% for choice (39/290). Within the choice group, participation was significantly higher with FIT (9.7%, 28/290) compared with the blood test (3.8%, 11/290, P = 0.005). The only variable significantly associated with participation was socioeconomic status when offered FIT, and age when offered choice but there was none when offered the blood test. Survey respondents indicated that convenience, time-saving, comfort, and familiarity were major influences on participation. There was no clear advantage between a fecal test, blood test, or choice of test although, when given a choice, the fecal test was preferred. Differences in variables associated with participation according to invitation strategy warrant consideration when deciding upon an invitation strategy for screening nonparticipants. PREVENTION RELEVANCE This trial of screening for those at average risk for colorectal cancer targeted past fecal-test nonparticipants and compared participation rates for mailed invitations offering a fecal test, blood test, or choice of either. Although there was no clear advantage between strategies, factors associated with participation differed between each strategy.
Assuntos

Texto completo: 1 Base de dados: MEDLINE Assunto principal: Participação do Paciente / Neoplasias Colorretais / Detecção Precoce de Câncer / Pacientes não Comparecentes Idioma: En Ano de publicação: 2021 Tipo de documento: Article

Texto completo: 1 Base de dados: MEDLINE Assunto principal: Participação do Paciente / Neoplasias Colorretais / Detecção Precoce de Câncer / Pacientes não Comparecentes Idioma: En Ano de publicação: 2021 Tipo de documento: Article