Inequalities and risk factors related to non-participation in colorectal cancer screening programmes: a systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Colorectal cancer (CRC) screening programmes require high levels of participation in order to reduce mortality. To improve participation rates, it is necessary to identify the health risk factors and social inequalities associated with non-participation. METHODS: A systematic review was conducted between June and September of 2019 in six databases: CINHAL, Medline, Scopus, Social Sciences Citation Index, Embase and PsycINFO. Studies assessing the relationship between health risk factors, participation in preventive activities and participation in CRC screening were included. Methodological assessment was carried out according to the Quality Assessment Tools of the National Heart, Lung and Blood Institute. RESULTS: A total of nine studies that analyze participation in both organized and opportunistic screening programmes using any type of screening method were finally selected. Data were mainly self-reported although in two studies medical records were also studied. We identified several variables: gender, body mass index, consultation with a doctor or a specialist, educational level, employment, health insurance, residence, ethnicity, age, marital status, income, other preventive activities, obesity, physical activity, smoking, family history of CRC and general health status. CONCLUSION: The scarcity of studies linking risk factors, social inequalities and participation in preventive activities for participation in screening in the same study makes it difficult to reach definitive patterns related to non-participation in CRC screening programmes. Nevertheless, being under 60, obese, smoker and sedentary have shown an association with non-participation as well as not visiting a doctor.

Indicadores de calidad y satisfacción de los pacientes en la colonoscopia / Quality indicators and patient satisfaction in colonoscopy

Introducción: La colonoscopia es la prueba de confirmación diagnóstica/terapéutica del cáncer colorrectal. La monitorización de la experiencia de las personas que se han realizado la prueba resulta de interés en la mejora de su calidad. El objetivo fue estudiar los factores relacionados con la experiencia y su relación con los indicadores de calidad de las guías de práctica clínica. Pacientes y métodos: Se realizó un estudio transversal observacional, incluyendo indicadores de calidad y experiencia (cuestionario mGHAA9 adaptado e historia clínica) con una muestra de 432 participantes de entre 40-75 años que se realizaron una colonoscopia en 2015. Análisis univariante y multivariante con regresión logística múltiple. Resultados: La satisfacción se asoció en el análisis multivariante con una valoración del tiempo de espera para la colonoscopia como corto (OR=3,80) (1,76-10,90; IC 95%), tener más de 55 años de edad (OR=2,60) (1,19-5,68; IC 95%), una valoración positiva de la experiencia de la preparación (OR=7,34) (3,15-17,09; IC 95%), no referir dolor o molestias durante el procedimiento (OR=3,71) (1,03-13,40; IC 95%) (p=0,006) y la realización de la exploración en un hospital terciario (OR=2,81) (1,17-6,72; IC 95%) (p=0,020). Discusión: El cuestionario mGHAA9 adaptado al castellano es útil para estudiar los factores relativos a la experiencia. Hay aspectos de mejora en los tiempos de espera, limpieza colónica, satisfacción con la preparación y los problemas poscolonoscopia. Se deben implementar intervenciones que permitan mejorar la experiencia de las personas y la calidad de la colonoscopia

Introduction: Colonoscopy is the diagnostic/therapeutic confirmation test for colorectal cancer. The monitoring of the experience of people who have undergone the test is interesting to improve the quality of the colonoscopy. The aim of the project was to study factors affecting patients' experience and their relationship with the quality indicators of the Clinical Practice Guidelines. Patients and methods: An observational cross-sectional study was conducted, including quality and experience indicators (adapted mGHAA-9 questionnaire and clinical history) in a sample of 432 participants aged between 40- and 75-years-old who had undergone a colonoscopy in 2015. Univariate and multivariate analysis with multiple logistic regression. Results: Satisfaction was associated in the multivariate analysis with evaluating the waiting time for the colonoscopy as short (OR=3.80) (1.76-10.90, 95% CI),>55-years-old (OR=2.60) (1.19-5.68, 95% CI), rating the experience with the preparation positively (OR=7.34) (3.15-17.09, 95% CI), not reporting pain or discomfort during the procedure (OR=3.71) (1.03-13.40, 95% CI) (P=.006) and being examined in a tertiary hospital (OR=2.81) (1.17-6.72; 95% CI) (P=.020). Discussion: The mGHAA-9 questionnaire adapted to Spanish is useful to evaluate patient experience factors. There are aspects to improve in terms of waiting time, colon cleansing, satisfaction with preparation and post-colonoscopy problems. Interventions should be implemented to enhance patient experience and colonoscopy quality

Quality indicators and patient satisfaction in colonoscopy. / Indicadores de calidad y satisfacción de los pacientes en la colonoscopia.

INTRODUCTION: Colonoscopy is the diagnostic/therapeutic confirmation test for colorectal cancer. The monitoring of the experience of people who have undergone the test is interesting to improve the quality of the colonoscopy. The aim of the project was to study factors affecting patients' experience and their relationship with the quality indicators of the Clinical Practice Guidelines. PATIENTS AND METHODS: An observational cross-sectional study was conducted, including quality and experience indicators (adapted mGHAA-9 questionnaire and clinical history) in a sample of 432 participants aged between 40- and 75-years-old who had undergone a colonoscopy in 2015. Univariate and multivariate analysis with multiple logistic regression. RESULTS: Satisfaction was associated in the multivariate analysis with evaluating the waiting time for the colonoscopy as short (OR=3.80) (1.76-10.90, 95% CI),>55-years-old (OR=2.60) (1.19-5.68, 95% CI), rating the experience with the preparation positively (OR=7.34) (3.15-17.09, 95% CI), not reporting pain or discomfort during the procedure (OR=3.71) (1.03-13.40, 95% CI) (P=.006) and being examined in a tertiary hospital (OR=2.81) (1.17-6.72; 95% CI) (P=.020). DISCUSSION: The mGHAA-9 questionnaire adapted to Spanish is useful to evaluate patient experience factors. There are aspects to improve in terms of waiting time, colon cleansing, satisfaction with preparation and post-colonoscopy problems. Interventions should be implemented to enhance patient experience and colonoscopy quality.

Colorectal cancer screening program using FIT: quality of colonoscopy varies according to hospital type.

Background and study aims To compare the quality of colonoscopy in a population-based coordinated program of colorectal cancer screening according to type of hospital (academic or non-academic). Patients and methods Consecutive patients undergoing colonoscopy after positive FIT (≥ 20 ug Hb/g feces) between January 2009 and September 2016 were prospectively included at five academic and seven non-academic public hospitals. Screening colonoscopy quality indicators considered were adenoma detection rate, cecal intubation rate, complications and bowel preparation quality. Results A total of 48,759 patients underwent colonoscopy, 34,616 (80 %) in academic hospitals and 14,143 in non-academic hospitals. Among these cases, 19,942 (37.1 %) advanced adenomas and 2,607 (5.3 %) colorectal cancers (CRCs) were detected, representing a total of 22,549 (46.2 %) cases of advanced neoplasia. The adenoma detection rate was 64 %, 63.1 % in academic hospitals and 66.4 % in non-academic hospitals ( P  < 0.001). Rates of advanced adenoma detection, cecal intubation and adequate colonic preparation were 45.8 %, 96.2 % and 88.3 %, respectively, and in all cases were lower (implying worse quality care) in academic hospitals (45.3 % vs 48.7 %; odds ratio [OR] 0.87, 95 % confidence interval [CI] 0.84 - 0.91; 95.9 % vs 97 %; OR 0.48, 95 % CI 0.38 - 0.69; and 86.4 % vs 93 %; OR 0.48, 95 % CI 0.45 - 0.5; respectively; P  < 0.001 in all cases). In 13 patients, all in the academic hospital group, CRC was diagnosed after colonoscopy (0.26 cases × 1000 colonoscopies). Rates of CRC treated by endoscopy were similar in both types of hospital (30 %). The rate of severe complication was 1.2 % (602 patients), with no significant differences by hospital type: bleeding occurred in 1/147 colonoscopies and perforation in 1/329. One patient died within 30 days after screening colonoscopy. Conclusions The quality of colonoscopy was better in non-academic hospitals. The rate of detection of advanced neoplasia was higher in non-academic hospitals and correlated with the rate of post-colonoscopy CRC.

Screening colonoscopy and risk of adverse events among individuals undergoing fecal immunochemical testing in a population-based program: A nested case-control study.

BACKGROUND: Screening by means of biennial fecal occult blood test has provided a reduction in overall colorectal cancer mortality. Notwithstanding, we should not underestimate the harms that it can produce. AIM: The aim of this article is to identify the independent risk factors of complications after a screening colonoscopy. METHODS: A six-year, nested case-control study was conducted. Mortality/complications within 30 days after colonoscopy were registered and its predictors identified through logistic regression. RESULTS: After 39,254 colonoscopies, the complication rate was 1.0%. Independent predictors were sex (OR 1.68 for men; CI 95% 1.18-2.39), ASA physical status classification system (OR 1.73 for ASA II-III; CI 95% 1.53-3.69), history of abdominal surgery (OR 2.37; CI 95% 1.72-4.08), diverticulosis (OR 2.89; CI 95% 1.94-4.30), inadequate cleansing (OR 29.35; CI 95% 6.52-132.17), detection of advanced neoplasia (AN) (OR 4.92; CI 95% 3.29-7.36), detection of stage I adenocarcinoma (OR 9.44; CI 95% 4.46-20.0), polyps in right colon OR 2.27 CI 95% 1.38-3.74) and complex polypectomy (OR 2.00; CI 95% 1.25-3.20). The logistic model explained 82% of the complications (CI 95% 0.798-0.854, p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Colonoscopy, with or without removal of a lesion, is an invasive procedure with a non-deniable risk of major complications. Factors like inadequate cleansing or detection of AN are determinants. Therefore, it is vital to know which aspects predict their appearance to implement countermeasures.

Factors related to the participation and detection of lesions in colorectal cancer screening programme-based faecal immunochemical test.

Background: The overall aim of this study was to describe trends in participation rates and detection of lesions in a colorectal cancer (CRC) screening programme, during three rounds, using faecal immunochemical test (FIT). Methods: National registers were used to collect data on invitations for CRC screening in the Basque Country (Spain) from 2009 to 2014. Information about participation, age, gender and lesions in each round were collected. Results: A total of 961.533 individuals were included in the analysis; respectively, 584.950, 298.143 and 78.440 in the first, second and third rounds. The average participation rate was 68.4% (66.8, 70.4 and 72.3%, respectively by round; P < 0.001) and the positivity rate was 6.3% (7, 5.5 and 5.4%, respectively by round; P < 0.001). The participation rate increased significantly with age and was found to be higher in women versus men. A total of 15.144 advanced adenomas and 2.131 CRCs were diagnosed, leading to a detection rate of 23.9 and 3.4‰, respectively. Regarding gender, men had the highest rates in all periods and rounds. The detection rate of advanced neoplasia was lower in the regular when compared with irregular paricipants. Conclusions: In a CRC screening, this organization obtained high FIT participation rates. Older participants and women were associated with a higher participation. The detection rate of lesions was higher in men, independent on age and round.

Colorectal and interval cancers of the Colorectal Cancer Screening Program in the Basque Country (Spain).

AIM: To assess proportions, related conditions and survival of interval cancer (IC). METHODS: The programme has a linkage with different clinical databases and cancer registers to allow suitable evaluation. This evaluation involves the detection of ICs after a negative faecal inmunochemical test (FIT), interval cancer FIT (IC-FIT) prior to a subsequent invitation, and the detection of ICs after a positive FIT and confirmatory diagnosis without colorectal cancer (CRC) detected and before the following recommended colonoscopy, IC-colonoscopy. We conducted a retrospective observational study analyzing from January 2009 to December 2015 1193602 invited people onto the Programme (participation rate of 68.6%). RESULTS: Two thousand five hundred and eighteen cancers were diagnosed through the programme, 18 cases of IC-colonoscopy were found before the recommended follow-up (43542 colonoscopies performed) and 186 IC-FIT were identified before the following invitation of the 769200 negative FITs. There was no statistically significant relation between the predictor variables of ICs with sex, age and deprivation index, but there was relation between location and stage. Additionally, it was observed that there was less risk when the location was distal rather than proximal (OR = 0.28, 95%CI: 0.20-0.40, P < 0.0001), with no statistical significance when the location was in the rectum as opposed to proximal. When comparing the screen-detected cancers (SCs) with ICs, significant differences in survival were found (P < 0.001); being the 5-years survival for SCs 91.6% and IC-FIT 77.8%. CONCLUSION: These findings in a Population Based CRC Screening Programme indicate the need of population-based studies that continue analyzing related factors to improve their detection and reducing harm.