The attitudes of primary care providers towards screening for colorectal cancer.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: the scientific community supports the appropriateness of colorectal cancer screening, and there is consensus on the need to raise awareness about the significance of prevention among both health care professionals and the population. The goal was to record the attitude of primary care providers towards colorectal cancer screening, as well as the main barriers to both patient and provider participation. METHODS: a cross-sectional, observational study was performed of 511 professionals in Albacete Health District. Variables included views on screening effectiveness and cost-effectiveness, acceptance by providers and patients, barriers to participation, frequency of prevention recommendations, and education needs. RESULTS: most (76 %) considered screening was effective; 85 % said acceptance of fecal occult blood testing was intermediate or high, and 68.2 % this is also the case for colonoscopy when needed; 71.9 % would recommend screening should a population-based program be implemented (currently only 9.7 % recommends this). Correspondence analysis revealed that recommendation is more common when assigned populations are smaller. CONCLUSIONS: most providers consider screening is both effective and acceptable for patients. In today´s situation, where screening is only performed in an opportunistic manner, the proportion of professionals who commonly recommend screening for the mid-risk population is low, especially when assigned populations are huge.

Actitudes de los profesionales sanitarios de atención primaria hacia el cribado del cáncer colorrectal / The attitudes of primary care providers towards screening for colorectal cancer

Antecedentes y objetivo: la comunidad científica avala la idoneidad del cribado del cáncer colorrectal y existe consenso sobre la necesidad de concienciar a la población y a los profesionales sanitarios sobre la importancia de su prevención. El objetivo ha sido conocer la actitud de los profesionales sanitarios de atención primaria hacia el cribado del cáncer colorrectal y los principales obstáculos para la participación, tanto para los pacientes como para los profesionales. Métodos: estudio observacional transversal realizado en 511 profesionales pertenecientes al área sanitaria de Albacete. Las variables incluyeron opinión sobre efectividad y coste-efectividad del cribado, aceptación de profesionales y pacientes, obstáculos para la participación, frecuencia de la recomendación preventiva y necesidades de formación. Resultados: la mayoría (76 %) consideró que el cribado es efectivo. El 85 % opinó que la aceptación de la determinación de sangre oculta en heces es intermedia/alta y el 68,2 % que también lo es la colonoscopia en caso necesario. El 71,9 % recomendaría el cribado si fuese implantado un programa poblacional (actualmente solo lo recomienda el 9,7 %). Mediante análisis de correspondencias se observó que la recomendación es más frecuente cuando es inferior la población asignada al profesional. Conclusiones: la mayoría de los profesionales consideran efectivo el cribado y aceptable para los pacientes. En la situación actual, en la que el cribado solo se realiza de manera oportunista, es baja la proporción de profesionales que recomiendan frecuentemente el cribado a la población de riesgo medio, especialmente cuando la población asignada es elevada (AU)

Background and objective: the scientific community supports the appropriateness of colorectal cancer screening, and there is consensus on the need to raise awareness about the significance of prevention among both health care professionals and the population. The goal was to record the attitude of primary care providers towards colorectal cancer screening, as well as the main barriers to both patient and provider participation. Methods: a cross-sectional, observational study was performed of 511 professionals in Albacete Health District. Variables included views on screening effectiveness and cost-effectiveness, acceptance by providers and patients, barriers to participation, frequency of prevention recommendations, and education needs. Results: most (76 %) considered screening was effective; 85 % said acceptance of fecal occult blood testing was intermediate or high, and 68.2 % this is also the case for colonoscopy when needed; 71.9 % would recommend screening should a population-based program be implemented (currently only 9.7 % recommends this). Correspondence analysis revealed that recommendation is more common when assigned populations are smaller. Conclusions: most providers consider screening is both effective and acceptable for patients. In today’s situation, where screening is only performed in an opportunistic manner, the proportion of professionals who commonly recommend screening for the mid-risk population is low, especially when assigned populations are huge (AU)