St Andrews Research Repository

St Andrews University Home
View Item 
  •   St Andrews Research Repository
  • University of St Andrews Research
  • University of St Andrews Research
  • University of St Andrews Research
  • View Item
  •   St Andrews Research Repository
  • University of St Andrews Research
  • University of St Andrews Research
  • University of St Andrews Research
  • View Item
  •   St Andrews Research Repository
  • University of St Andrews Research
  • University of St Andrews Research
  • University of St Andrews Research
  • View Item
  • Login
JavaScript is disabled for your browser. Some features of this site may not work without it.

Why colorectal screening fails to achieve the uptake rates of breast and cervical cancer screening : a comparative qualitative study

Thumbnail
View/Open
NAEDI_quali_BMJQS_Accepted.pdf (215.9Kb)
Date
26/12/2019
Author
Kotzur, Marie
McCowan, Colin
Macdonald, Sara
Wyke, Sally
Gatting, Lauren
Campbell, Christine
Weller, David
Crighton, Emilia
Steele, Robert
Robb, Kathryn
Keywords
RC0254 Neoplasms. Tumors. Oncology (including Cancer)
RG Gynecology and obstetrics
NDAS
Metadata
Show full item record
Altmetrics Handle Statistics
Altmetrics DOI Statistics
Abstract
Background In Scotland, the uptake of clinic-based breast (72%) and cervical (77%) screening is higher than home-based colorectal screening (~60%). To inform new approaches to increase uptake of colorectal screening, we compared the perceptions of colorectal screening among women with different screening histories. Methods We purposively sampled women with different screening histories to invite to semistructured interviews: (1) participated in all; (2) participated in breast and cervical but not colorectal (‘colorectal-specific non-participants’); (3) participated in none. To identify the sample we linked the data for all women eligible for all three screening programmes in Glasgow, Scotland (aged 51–64 years; n=68 324). Interviews covered perceptions of cancer, screening and screening decisions. Framework method was used for analysis. Results Of the 2924 women invited, 86 expressed an interest, and 59 were interviewed. The three groups’ perceptions differed, with the colorectal-specific non-participants expressing that: (1) treatment for colorectal cancer is more severe than for breast or cervical cancer; (2) colorectal symptoms are easier to self-detect than breast or cervical symptoms; (3) they worried about completing the test incorrectly; and (4) the colorectal test could be more easily delayed or forgotten than breast or cervical screening. Conclusion Our comparative approach suggested targets for future interventions to increase colorectal screening uptake including: (1) reducing fear of colorectal cancer treatments; (2) increasing awareness that screening is for the asymptomatic; (3) increasing confidence to self-complete the test; and (4) providing a suggested deadline and/or additional reminders.
Citation
Kotzur , M , McCowan , C , Macdonald , S , Wyke , S , Gatting , L , Campbell , C , Weller , D , Crighton , E , Steele , R & Robb , K 2019 , ' Why colorectal screening fails to achieve the uptake rates of breast and cervical cancer screening : a comparative qualitative study ' , BMJ Quality & Safety , vol. Online First . https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjqs-2019-009998
Publication
BMJ Quality & Safety
Status
Peer reviewed
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjqs-2019-009998
ISSN
2044-5415
Type
Journal article
Rights
Copyright © Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2019. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ. This work has been made available online in accordance with publisher policies or with permission. Permission for further reuse of this content should be sought from the publisher or the rights holder. This is the author created accepted manuscript following peer review and may differ slightly from the final published version. The final published version of this work is available at https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjqs-2019-009998
Description
Funding: National Awareness and Early Diagnosis Initiative Grant (C9227/A17676) awarded to co-PIs KR and CMcC.
Collections
  • University of St Andrews Research
URI
http://hdl.handle.net/10023/19320

Items in the St Andrews Research Repository are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.

Advanced Search

Browse

All of RepositoryCommunities & CollectionsBy Issue DateNamesTitlesSubjectsClassificationTypeFunderThis CollectionBy Issue DateNamesTitlesSubjectsClassificationTypeFunder

My Account

Login

Open Access

To find out how you can benefit from open access to research, see our library web pages and Open Access blog. For open access help contact: openaccess@st-andrews.ac.uk.

Accessibility

Read our Accessibility statement.

How to submit research papers

The full text of research papers can be submitted to the repository via Pure, the University's research information system. For help see our guide: How to deposit in Pure.

Electronic thesis deposit

Help with deposit.

Repository help

For repository help contact: Digital-Repository@st-andrews.ac.uk.

Give Feedback

Cookie policy

This site may use cookies. Please see Terms and Conditions.

Usage statistics

COUNTER-compliant statistics on downloads from the repository are available from the IRUS-UK Service. Contact us for information.

© University of St Andrews Library

University of St Andrews is a charity registered in Scotland, No SC013532.

  • Facebook
  • Twitter