Barriers to flexible sigmoidoscopy colorectal cancer screening in low uptake socio-demographic groups: A systematic review.

OBJECTIVE: To synthesise qualitative evidence related to barriers and facilitators of flexible sigmoidoscopy screening (FSS) intention and uptake, particularly within low socio-demographic uptake groups. FSS uptake is lower amongst women, lower socio-economic status (SES), and Asian ethnic groups within the United Kingdom (UK) and United States of America. METHODS: A total of 12 168 articles were identified from searches of four databases: EMBASE, MEDLINE, PsycINFO and Web of Science. Eligibility criteria included: individuals eligible to attend FSS and empirical peer-reviewed studies that analysed qualitative data. The Critical Appraisal Skills Program tool evaluated the methodological quality of included studies, and thematic synthesis was used to analyse the data. RESULTS: Ten qualitative studies met the inclusion criteria. Key barriers to FSS intention and uptake centred upon procedural anxieties. Women, including UK Asian women, reported shame and embarrassment, anticipated pain, perforation risk, and test preparation difficulties to elevate anxiety levels. Religious and cultural-influenced health beliefs amongst UK Asian groups were reported to inhibit FSS intention and uptake. Competing priorities, such as caring commitments, particularly impeded women's ability to attend certain FSS appointments. The review identified a knowledge gap concerning factors especially associated with FSS participation amongst lower SES groups. CONCLUSIONS: Studies mostly focussed on barriers and facilitators of intention to participate in FSS, particularly within UK Asian groups. To determine the barriers associated with FSS uptake, and further understand how screening intention translates to behaviour, it is important that future qualitative research is equally directed towards factors associated with screening behaviour.

Anxiety Associated with Colonoscopy and Flexible Sigmoidoscopy: A Systematic Review.

OBJECTIVES: Addressing procedure-related anxiety should improve adherence to colorectal cancer screening programs and diagnostic colonoscopy. We performed a systematic review to assess anxiety among individuals undergoing colonoscopy or flexible sigmoidoscopy (FS). METHODS: We searched multiple electronic databases for studies evaluating anxiety associated with colonoscopy or FS published from 2005 to 2017. Two reviewers independently identified studies, extracted data, and assessed study quality. The main outcomes were the magnitude of pre-procedure anxiety, types of concerns, predictors of anxiety, and effectiveness of anxiety-lowering interventions in individuals undergoing lower endoscopy. The protocol was prospectively registered in PROSPERO. RESULTS: Fifty-eight studies (24,490 patients) met the inclusion criteria. Patients undergoing colonoscopy had a higher mean level of anxiety than that previously reported in the general population, with some studies reporting more than 50% of patients having moderate-to-severe anxiety. Areas of anxiety-related concern included bowel preparation, difficulties with the procedure (embarrassment, pain, possible complications, and sedation), and concerns about diagnosis; including fear of being diagnosed with cancer. Female gender, higher baseline anxiety, functional abdominal pain, lower education, and lower income were associated with greater anxiety prior to colonoscopy. Providing higher-quality information before colonoscopy, particularly with a video, shows promise as a way of reducing pre-procedure anxiety but the studies to date are of low quality. CONCLUSIONS: A large proportion of patients undergoing colonoscopy report anxiety before the procedure. Improvement in pre-procedure information delivery and evaluation of approaches to reduce anxiety is required, especially for those with predictors of pre-procedure anxiety.

Flexible Sigmoidoscopy and CT Colonography Screening: Patients' Experience with and Factors for Undergoing Screening-Insight from the Proteus Colon Trial.

Purpose To compare the acceptability of computed tomographic (CT) colonography and flexible sigmoidoscopy (FS) screening and the factors predicting CT colonographic screening participation, targeting participants in a randomized screening trial. Materials and Methods Eligible individuals aged 58 years (n = 1984) living in Turin, Italy, were randomly assigned to be invited to screening for colorectal cancer with FS or CT colonography. After individuals who had died or moved away (n = 28) were excluded, 264 of 976 (27.0%) underwent screening with FS and 298 of 980 (30.4%) underwent CT colonography. All attendees and a sample of CT colonography nonattendees (n = 299) were contacted for a telephone interview 3-6 months after invitation for screening, and screening experience and factors affecting participation were investigated. Odds ratios (ORs) were computed by means of multivariable logistic regression. Results For the telephone interviews, 239 of 264 (90.6%) FS attendees, 237 of 298 (79.5%) CT colonography attendees, and 182 of 299 (60.9%) CT colonography nonattendees responded. The percentage of attendees who would recommend the test to friends or relatives was 99.1% among FS and 93.3% among CT colonography attendees. Discomfort associated with bowel preparation was higher among CT colonography than FS attendees (OR, 2.77; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.47, 5.24). CT colonography nonattendees were less likely to be men (OR, 0.36; 95% CI: 0.18, 0.71), retired (OR, 0.31; 95% CI: 0.13, 0.75), to report regular physical activity (OR, 0.37; 95% CI: 0.20, 0.70), or to have read the information leaflet (OR, 0.18; 95% CI: 0.08, 0.41). They were more likely to mention screening-related anxiety (mild: OR, 6.30; 95% CI: 2.48, 15.97; moderate or severe: OR, 3.63; 95% CI: 1.87, 7.04), erroneous beliefs about screening (OR, 32.15; 95% CI: 6.26, 165.19), or having undergone a recent fecal occult blood test (OR, 13.69; 95% CI: 3.66, 51.29). Conclusion CT colonography and FS screening are well accepted, but further reducing the discomfort from bowel preparation may increase CT colonography screening acceptability. Negative attitudes, erroneous beliefs about screening, and organizational barriers are limiting screening uptake; all these factors are modifiable and therefore potentially susceptible to interventions. © RSNA, 2017 Online supplemental material is available for this article.

The Effect of a Health Education Intervention on Jordanian Participants' Colorectal Cancer Knowledge, Health Perceptions, and Screening Practices.

BACKGROUND: Globally, colorectal cancer (CRC) is the second and third most commonly diagnosed cancer in women and men, respectively. OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study is to test the effectiveness of a health education intervention on the current level of Jordanians' CRC knowledge, health perceptions, and screening practices. METHODS: A convenience sampling method was used to recruit a sample of 197 average-risk Jordanian adults aged 50 to 75 years. The sample was collected from outpatient departments of Jordan University and Al-Basheer Hospitals in Amman. This study used quasi-experimental design, and a rolling enrollment method was implemented to randomly assign the participants into intervention and control groups. RESULTS: Baseline results indicated that Jordanian average-risk participants were not well informed about CRC and screening recommendations. One-fourth perceived themselves to be susceptible to CRC. About one-third comprehended the seriousness of CRC, most recognized the benefits of CRC screening, and fewer than half believed there were barriers preventing them from participating in CRC screening. Four weeks after intervention implementation, there was a significantly higher level of knowledge, as well as increased susceptibility and severity perceptions, screening via fecal occult blood test, and intentions to undergo screening via colonoscopy or sigmoidoscopy. CONCLUSION: The findings support the implementation of a health education intervention as an effective way to enhance levels of knowledge and promote positive health perceptions regarding CRC and screening recommendations. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: This study may provide Jordanian and other nurses with a theory-based educational intervention to improve the quality of nursing care and reduce costs.

Psychological effects of colorectal cancer screening: Participants vs individuals not invited.

AIM: To investigate the possible long-term psychological harm of participating in colorectal cancer (CRC) screening in Norway. METHODS: In a prospective, randomized trial, 14294 participants (aged 50-74 years) were invited to either flexible sigmoidoscopy (FS) screening, or a faecal immunochemical test (FIT) (1:1). In total, 4422 screening participants (32%) completed the questionnaire, which consisted of the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale and the SF-12, a generic health-related quality of life (HRQOL) measurement, when invited to screening and one year after the invitation. A control group of 7650 individuals was invited to complete the questionnaire only, at baseline and one year after, and 1911 (25%) completed the questionnaires. RESULTS: Receiving a positive or negative screening result and participating in the two different screening modalities did not cause clinically relevant mean changes in anxiety, depression or HRQOL after one year. FS screening, but not FIT, was associated with an increased probability of being an anxiety case (score ≥ 8) at the one-year follow-up (5.6% of FS participants transitioned from being not anxious to anxious, while 3.0% experienced the reverse). This increase was moderately significantly different from the changes in the control group (in which the corresponding numbers were 4.8% and 4.5%, respectively), P = 0.06. CONCLUSION: Most individuals do not experience psychological effects of CRC screening participation after one year, while FS participation is associated with increased anxiety for a smaller group.

Concerns, perceived need and competing priorities: a qualitative exploration of decision-making and non-participation in a population-based flexible sigmoidoscopy screening programme to prevent colorectal cancer.

OBJECTIVE: Optimising uptake of colorectal cancer (CRC) screening is important to achieve projected health outcomes. Population-based screening by flexible sigmoidoscopy (FS) was introduced in England in 2013 (NHS Bowel scope screening). Little is known about reactions to the invitation to participate in FS screening, as offered within the context of the Bowel scope programme. We aimed to investigate responses to the screening invitation to inform understanding of decision-making, particularly in relation to non-participation in screening. DESIGN: Qualitative analysis of semistructured in-depth interviews and written accounts. PARTICIPANTS AND SETTING: People from 31 general practices in the North East and East of England invited to attend FS screening as part of NHS Bowel scope screening programme were sent invitations to take part in the study. We purposively sampled interviewees to ensure a range of accounts in terms of beliefs, screening attendance, sex and geographical location. RESULTS: 20 screeners and 25 non-screeners were interviewed. Written responses describing reasons for, and circumstances surrounding, non-participation from a further 28 non-screeners were included in the analysis. Thematic analysis identified a range of reactions to the screening invitation, decision-making processes and barriers to participation. These include a perceived or actual lack of need; inability to attend; anxiety and fear about bowel preparation, procedures or hospital; inability or reluctance to self-administer an enema; beliefs about low susceptibility to bowel cancer or treatment and understanding of harm and benefits. The strength, rather than presence, of concerns about the test and perceived need for reassurance were important in the decision to participate for screeners and non-screeners. Decision-making occurs within the context of previous experiences and day-to-day life. CONCLUSIONS: Understanding the reasons for non-participation in FS screening can help inform strategies to improve uptake and may be transferable to other screening programmes.

Do no harm: no psychological harm from colorectal cancer screening.

BACKGROUND: Participation in cancer screening programmes might cause worries in the population outweighting the benefits of reduced mortality. The present study aimed to investigate possible psychological harm of participation in a colorectal cancer (CRC) screening pilot in Norway. METHODS: In a prospective, randomised trial participants (aged 50-74 years) were invited to either flexible sigmoidoscopy (FS) screening, faecal immunochemical test (FIT), or no screening (the control group; 1 : 1: 1). Three thousand two hundred and thirteen screening participants (42% of screened individuals) completed the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale questionnaire as well as the SF-12-a health-related quality of life (HRQOL) questionnaire when invited to screening and when receiving the screening result. A control group was invited to complete the questionnaires only. Two thousand six hundred and eighteen control participants (35% of invited individuals) completed the questionnaire. RESULTS: A positive screening result did not increase participants' level of anxiety or depression, or decrease participants' level of HRQOL. Participants who received a negative result reported decreased anxiety and improvement on some HRQOL dimensions. However, no change was considered to be of clinical relevance. CONCLUSION: The current study showed no clinically relevant psychological harm of receiving a positive CRC screening result or of participating in FS or FIT screening, in a Norwegian population.

Diabetes Status and Being Up-to-Date on Colorectal Cancer Screening, 2012 Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System.

INTRODUCTION: Although screening rates for colorectal cancer are increasing, 22 million Americans are not up-to-date with recommendations. People with diabetes are an important and rapidly growing group at increased risk for colorectal cancer. Screening status and predictors of being up-to-date on screening are largely unknown in this population. METHODS: This study used logistic regression modeling and data from the 2012 Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System to examine the association between diabetes and colorectal cancer screening predictors with being up-to-date on colorectal cancer screening according to criteria of the US Preventive Services Task Force for adults aged 50 or older. State prevalence rates of up-to-date colorectal cancer screening were also calculated and mapped. RESULTS: The prevalence of being up-to-date with colorectal cancer screening for all respondents aged 50 or older was 65.6%; for respondents with diabetes, the rate was 69.2%. Respondents with diabetes were 22% more likely to be up-to-date on colorectal cancer screening than those without diabetes. Among those with diabetes, having a routine checkup within the previous year significantly increased the odds of being up-to-date on colorectal cancer screening (odds ratio, 1.90). Other factors such as age, income, education, race/ethnicity, insurance status, and history of cancer were also associated with up-to-date status. CONCLUSION: Regardless of diabetes status, people who had a routine checkup within the past year were more likely to be up-to-date than people who had not. Among people with diabetes, the duration between routine checkups may be of greater importance than the frequency of diabetes-related doctor visits. Continued efforts should be made to ensure that routine care visits occur regularly to address the preventive health needs of patients with and patients without diabetes.

Understanding Barriers to Colorectal Cancer Screening in Kentucky.

INTRODUCTION: Colorectal cancer screening rates have increased significantly in Kentucky, from 35% in 1999 to 66% in 2012. A continued improvement in screening requires identification of existing barriers and implementation of interventions to address barriers. METHODS: The state of Kentucky added a question to the 2012 Kentucky Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System survey for respondents aged 50 years or older who answered no to ever having been screened for colorectal cancer by colonoscopy or sigmoidoscopy to assess the reasons why respondents had not been screened. Combined responses constituted 4 categories: attitudes and beliefs, health care provider and health care systems barriers, cost, and other. Prevalence estimates for barriers were calculated by using raking weights and were stratified by race/ethnicity, sex, education, income, and health insurance coverage. Logistic regression estimated odds ratios for barriers to screening. RESULTS: The most common barriers in all areas were related to attitudes and beliefs, followed by health care provider and systems, and cost. Non-Hispanic whites and respondents with more than a high school education were more likely to choose attitudes and beliefs as a barrier than were non-Hispanic blacks and those with less than a high school education. Respondents with low incomes and with no insurance were significantly more likely to select cost as a barrier. No significant associations were observed between demographic variables and the selection of a health care provider and a health care system. CONCLUSION: Barriers related to education, race/ethnicity, income, and insurance coverage should be considered when designing interventions. Expansion of Medicaid and implementation of the Affordable Care Act in Kentucky could have an impact on reducing these barriers.

Invitation strategies for colorectal cancer screening programmes: The impact of an advance notification letter.

AIM: To estimate the impact of an advance notification letter on participation in sigmoidoscopy (FS) and fecal immunochemical test (FIT) screening. METHODS: Eligible subjects, invited in 3 Italian population based programmes using FS and in 5 using FIT, were randomised (1:1:1), within GP, to: A) standard invitation letter; B) advance notification followed after 1month by the standard invitation; and C) B+indication to contact the general practitioner (GP) to get advice about the decision to be screened. We calculated the 9-month attendance and the incremental cost of each strategy. We conducted a phone survey to assess GP's utilization and predictors of participation. RESULTS: The advance notification was associated with a 20% increase in the attendance among 15,655 people invited for FS (B vs A - RR: 1.17, 95% CI: 1.10-1.25; C vs A - RR: 1.19, 95% CI: 1.12-1.27); the incremental cost ranged between 10 and 9 Euros. Participation in FIT screening (N=23,543) was increased only with simple pre-notification (B vs A - RR: 1.06, 95% CI: 1.02-1.10); the incremental cost was 22.5 Euros. GP consultation rate was not increased in group C. CONCLUSIONS: An advance notification represents a cost-effective strategy to increase participation in FS screening; its impact on the response to FIT screening was limited.

Cancer fear: facilitator and deterrent to participation in colorectal cancer screening.

BACKGROUND: Cancer fear has been associated with higher and lower screening uptake across different studies, possibly because different aspects of cancer fear have different effects on intentions versus behavior. The present study examined associations of three aspects of cancer fear with intention and uptake of endoscopic screening for colorectal cancer. METHODS: A subsample of UK Flexible Sigmoidoscopy (FS) Trial participants received a baseline questionnaire that included three cancer fear items from a standard measure asking if: (i) cancer was feared more than other diseases, (ii) cancer worry was experienced frequently, and (iii) thoughts about cancer caused discomfort. Screening intention was assessed by asking participants whether, if invited, they would accept an invitation for FS screening. Positive responders were randomized to be invited or not in a 1:2 ratio. The behavioral outcome was clinic-recorded uptake. Control variables were age, gender, ethnicity, education, and marital status. RESULTS: The questionnaire return rate was 60% (7,971/13,351). The majority (82%) intended to attend screening; 1,920 were randomized to receive an invitation, and 71% attended. Fearing cancer more than other diseases (OR = 2.32, P < 0.01) and worrying a lot about cancer (OR = 2.34, P < 0.01) increased intentions to attend screening, but not uptake. Finding thoughts about cancer uncomfortable did not influence intention, but predicted lower uptake (OR = 0.72, P < 0.01). CONCLUSIONS: Different aspects of cancer fear have different effects on the decision and action processes leading to screening participation. IMPACT: Knowledge of the different behavioral effects of cancer fear may aid the design of effective public health messages.

Colorectal cancer risk information presented by a nonphysician assistant does not increase screening rates.

OBJECTIVE: To determine the effectiveness of presenting individualized colorectal cancer (CRC) risk information for increasing CRC screening rates in primary care patients at above-average risk of CRC. DESIGN: Randomized controlled trial. SETTING: Georgia Regents University in Augusta-an academic family medicine clinic in the southeastern United States. PARTICIPANTS: Outpatients (50 to 70 years of age) scheduled for routine visits in the family medicine clinic who were determined to be at above-average risk of CRC. INTERVENTIONS: Individualized CRC risk information calculated from the Your Disease Risk tool compared with a standard CRC screening handout. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Intention to complete CRC screening. Secondary measures included the proportions of subjects completing fecal occult blood tests, flexible sigmoidoscopy, and colonoscopy. RESULTS: A total of 1147 consecutive records were reviewed to determine eligibility. Overall, 210 (37.7%) of 557 eligible participants were randomized to receive either individualized CRC risk information (prepared by a research assistant) or a standard CRC screening handout. The intervention group had a mean (SD) age of 55.7 (4.8) years and the control group had a mean (SD) age of 55.6 (4.6) years. Two-thirds of the participants in each group were female. The intervention group and the control group were matched by race (P = .40). There was no significant difference between groups for intention to complete CRC screening (P = .58). Overall, 26.7% of the intervention participants and 27.7% of the control participants completed 1 or more CRC screening tests (P = .66). CONCLUSION: Presentation of individualized CRC risk information by a nonphysician assistant as a decision aid did not result in higher CRC screening rates in primary care patients compared with presentation of general CRC screening information. Future research is needed to determine if physician presentation of CRC risk information would result in increased screening rates compared with research assistant presentation.

Sociopsychological tailoring to address colorectal cancer screening disparities: a randomized controlled trial.

PURPOSE: Interventions tailored to sociopsychological factors associated with health behaviors have promise for reducing colorectal cancer screening disparities, but limited research has assessed their impact in multiethnic populations. We examined whether an interactive multimedia computer program (IMCP) tailored to expanded health belief model sociopsychological factors could promote colorectal cancer screening in a multiethnic sample. METHODS: We undertook a randomized controlled trial, comparing an IMCP tailored to colorectal cancer screening self-efficacy, knowledge, barriers, readiness, test preference, and experiences with a nontailored informational program, both delivered before office visits. The primary outcome was record-documented colorectal cancer screening during a 12-month follow-up period. Secondary outcomes included postvisit sociopsychological factor status and discussion, as well as clinician recommendation of screening during office visits. We enrolled 1,164 patients stratified by ethnicity and language (49.3% non-Hispanic, 27.2% Hispanic/English, 23.4% Hispanic/Spanish) from 26 offices around 5 centers (Sacramento, California; Rochester and the Bronx, New York; Denver, Colorado; and San Antonio, Texas). RESULTS: Adjusting for ethnicity/language, study center, and the previsit value of the dependent variable, compared with control patients, the IMCP led to significantly greater colorectal cancer screening knowledge, self-efficacy, readiness, test preference specificity, discussion, and recommendation. During the followup period, 132 (23%) IMCP and 123 (22%) control patients received screening (adjusted difference = 0.5 percentage points, 95% CI -4.3 to 5.3). IMCP effects did not differ significantly by ethnicity/language. CONCLUSIONS: Sociopsychological factor tailoring was no more effective than nontailored information in encouraging colorectal cancer screening in a multiethnic sample, despite enhancing sociopsychological factors and visit behaviors associated with screening. The utility of sociopsychological tailoring in addressing screening disparities remains uncertain.

Patient attitudes and issues in colon cancer screening.

Colorectal cancer (CRC) is the third leading cause of cancer death in the United States, and is largely preventable by CRC screening (CRCS). Participation in CRCS, however, is much lower than participation in other forms of preventive care. Many reasons for low rates of participation have been identified, and can be generally divided into provider- and patient-specific issues. Lack of a provider recommendation is a well-established and widely reported patient barrier to CRCS. Numerous patient-specific issues have been identified, ranging from fear of CRCS test results to lack of knowledge about individual risk for CRC and inadequate resources to complete CRCS. This article discusses the impact of patient attitudes and issues toward CRCS, with particular attention to modifiable psychosocial factors, the importance of patient preferences for one CRCS test over another, knowledge of CRC risk, and the impact of educational tools on patient compliance with CRCS.

Screening in the era of economic crisis: misperceptions and misuse from a longitudinal study on Greek women undergoing benign vacuum-assisted breast biopsy.

BACKGROUND: To evaluate knowledge about screening tests and tests without proven screening value in a Greek Breast Unit population undergoing benign vacuum-assisted breast biopsy (VABB). MATERIALS AND METHODS: This study included 81 patients. Three knowledge-oriented items (recommended or not, screening frequency, age of onset) were assessed. Regarding screening tests two levels of knowledge were evaluated: i). crude knowledge (CK), i.e. knowledge that the test is recommended and ii). advanced knowledge (AK), i.e. correct response to all three knowledge-oriented items. Solely CK was evaluated for tests without proven screening value. Risk factors for lack of knowledge were assessed with multivariate logistic regression. A second questionnaire was administered 18 months after VABB to assess its impact on the performance of tests. RESULTS: Concerning screening tests considerable lack of AK was noted (mammogram, 60.5%; Pap smear, 59.3%; fecal occult blood testing, 93.8%; sigmoidoscopy, 95.1%). Similarly lack of CK was documented regarding tests without proven screening value (breast self-examination, 92.6%; breast MRI, 60.5%; abdominal ultrasound, 71.6%; barium meal, 48.1%; urine analysis, 90.1%; chest X-Ray, 69.1%; electrocardiogram, 74.1%; cardiac ultrasound, 75.3%). Risk factors for lack of AK were: place of residence (mammogram), age (Pap smear), personal income (sigmoidoscopy); risk factors for lack of CK included number of offspring (breast MRI, chest X-Ray), BMI (abdominal ultrasound), marital status (urine analysis), current smoking status (electrocardiogram). VABB's only effect was improvement in mammogram rates. CONCLUSIONS: A considerable lack of knowledge concerning screening tests and misperceptions regarding those without proven value was documented.

Evaluation of the knowledge, behavior and health beliefs of individuals over 50 regarding colorectal cancer screening.

The aim of the study was to evaluate of the knowledge, behavior and health beliefs of individuals over 50 regarding colorectal cancer screening, with a descriptive and cross-sectional design at Karabuk Life and Health Center in Turkey. A total of 160 people meeting set criteria were included in the study. The questionnaire consisted of two parts. The first part was composed of questions on characteristics of participants and the second part of questions derived from the Champion's Health Belief Model Scale. Only 15.0% of participants (n=24) had undergone a fecal occult blood test (FOBT), 11.3% (n=18) had had colonoscopy and 4.4% (n=7) had had sigmoidoscopy. Some 90.6% of the participants had low levels of risk awareness about the colorectal cancer. It was found that the average point of severity subscale of participants over 65 is higher than that of participants under 65 (p<0.05). In conclusion, because of the many barriers and health beliefs for the colorectal cancer screening program, the rate of participation in screening programs is not sufficient. Healthcare providers have important responsibilities for increasing rate of attendance in colorectal cancer screening programs.

Preferences for colorectal cancer screening techniques and intention to attend: a multi-criteria decision analysis.

BACKGROUND: Despite the expected health benefits of colorectal cancer screening programs, participation rates remain low in countries that have implemented such a screening program. The perceived benefits and risks of the colorectal cancer screening technique are likely to influence the decision to attend the screening program. Besides the diagnostic accuracy and the risks of the screening technique, which can affect the health of the participants, additional factors, such as the burden of the test, may impact the individuals' decisions to participate. To maximise the participation rate of a screening program for a new colorectal cancer program in the Netherlands, it is important to know the preferences of the screening population for alternative screening techniques. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to explore the impact of preferences for particular attributes of the screening tests on the intention to attend a colorectal cancer screening program. METHODS: We used a web-based questionnaire to elicit the preferences of the target population for a selection of colon-screening techniques. The target population consisted of Dutch men and women aged 55-75 years. The analytic hierarchy process (AHP), a technique for multi-criteria analysis, was used to estimate the colorectal cancer screening preferences. Respondents weighted the relevance of five criteria, i.e. the attributes of the screening techniques: sensitivity, specificity, safety, inconvenience, and frequency of the test. With regard to these criteria, preferences were estimated between four alternative screening techniques, namely, immunochemical fecal occult blood test (iFOBT), colonoscopy, sigmoidoscopy, and computerized tomographic (CT) colonography. A five-point ordinal scale was used to estimate the respondents' intention to attend the screening. We conducted a correlation analysis on the preferences for the screening techniques and the intention to attend. RESULTS: We included 167 respondents who were consistent in their judgments of the relevance of the criteria and their preferences for the screening techniques. The most preferred screening method for the national screening program was CT colonography. Sensitivity (weight = 0.26) and safety (weight = 0.26) were the strongest determinants of the overall preferences for the screening techniques. However, the screening test with the highest intention to attend was iFOBT. Inconvenience (correlation [r] = 0.69), safety (r = 0.58), and the frequency of the test (r = 0.58) were most strongly related to intention to attend. CONCLUSIONS: The multi-criteria decision analysis revealed the attributes of the screening techniques that are most important so as to increase intention to participate in a screening program. Even though the respondents may recognize the high importance of diagnostic effectiveness in the long term, their short-term decision to attend the screening tests may be less driven by this consideration. Our analysis suggests that inconvenience, safety, and frequency of the test are the strongest technique-related determinants of the respondents' intention to participate in colorectal screening programs.

Role of anxiety in the comfort of nonsedated average-risk screening sigmoidoscopy.

OBJECTIVES: The aim of this prospective study was to assess the role of generalized anxiety disorder in the comfort of nonsedated, average-risk screening sigmoidoscopy. METHODS: Patients were asked to complete a screening questionnaire before undergoing average-risk colon cancer screening with nonsedated sigmoidoscopy. The questionnaire included demographic information and a series of Likert-based and visual analog scales designed to assess patient comfort, procedural symptom severity, and satisfaction. The Primary Care Evaluation of Mental Disorders questionnaire was used to assess for generalized anxiety disorder. Comfort levels and postprocedural symptom severity were recorded immediately after the procedure and 1 week postprocedure. χ and t tests were used to analyze the data. RESULTS: Eighty-one patients were enrolled in the study. Twenty-seven patients tested positive for anxiety (high anxiety), whereas 54 tested negative (low anxiety). There were no differences in anxiety according to sex (P = 0.53), or age (P = 0.32). There was no difference in reaching the splenic flexure between high- and low-anxiety patients (P = 0.15); however, pairwise comparisons revealed patients with high anxiety reported significantly higher levels of abdominal pain after the procedure (P < 0.01) and still recalled higher pain from the procedure 1 week later (P < 0.01) than those patients with low anxiety scores. Furthermore, those patients with high anxiety reported significantly more procedure-related cramping and bloating both immediately after the procedure and again 1 week later (P < 0.01). Finally, patients with high anxiety reported the procedure as being more uncomfortable 1 week later, when compared with low-anxiety patients (P = 0.01). CONCLUSIONS: The level of anxiety correlated directly to pain and discomfort postprocedure and related inversely to the level of satisfaction. Better management of anxiety may lead to better procedural comfort in nonsedated procedures.

A computerized intervention to promote colorectal cancer screening for underserved populations: theoretical background and algorithm development.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this exploratory study was to assess factors deemed by patients as "important" as they planned and considered undergoing colorectal cancer (CRC) screening, and to use this data to design a computer-delivered intervention to promote screening. METHODS: Fifty participants 50 years or older, not up-to-date with current recommended CRC screening guidelines, were recruited from a primary care clinic. A semi-structured interview focused on aspects of preparing for colorectal cancer screening was administered; after transcription, researchers used triangulation and consensus to identify relevant themes and concepts. RESULTS: Four main themes were identified that dealt with issues important for both FOBT and colonoscopy planning: personal concerns, reminders, communication with healthcare providers and obtaining test results. FOBT specific themes included: sample collection and return. For colonoscopy screening, themes included: scheduling, intervention questions, colonoscopy preparation, and transportation. These can be classified as barrier, process and accessory themes. The developed computer-administered implementation intentions algorithm addressed all the identified concerns in a planned and sequential manner, in order to facilitate planning for CRC screening. CONCLUSIONS: The results of this study suggest that appropriate reminders, explanations of procedures, and patient understanding of temporary life disruptions, help patients develop and accept a detailed screening plan.

No effect of perianal application of topical anaesthetic on patient comfort during nonsedated flexible sigmoidoscopy: a randomized, placebo-controlled clinical trial.

AIM: A literature review revealed no data on the effects of topical anaesthetic on patient comfort during flexible sigmoidoscopy. We therefore aimed to evaluate this in a randomized manner. METHOD: One hundred and forty-six patients who underwent flexible sigmoidoscopy were randomly allocated to one of three groups. Vaseline (n = 49), 2% lidocaine gel (n = 51) or a cream of 2.5% lidocaine plus 2.5% prilocaine (n = 46) were applied to the patients 30 min before the procedure. Demographic data and haemodynamic monitoring during procedures were recorded. Pain was assessed by visual analogue scale (VAS) and anxiety levels by the State-Trait Anxiety Inventory (STAI-I and STA-II). RESULTS: Median pre-procedural STAI-I scores were 45, 46 and 40.5 and median post-procedural STAI-I scores were 35, 34 and 33.5 for the vaseline, lidocaine, and lidocaine/prilocaine treatments, respectively. There was no statistical difference among the groups in terms of STAI-I and II scores. However, post-procedural STAI-I scores were significantly lower than pre-procedural values in each group (P < 0.001). There was no significant difference in VAS scores among the groups. In all groups there were statistically higher VAS scores during the procedure compared with the pre- and post-procedural scores (P < 0.001). CONCLUSION: Perianal application of topical anaesthetic does not influence patient comfort during sigmoidoscopy.