Barriers to home bowel cancer screening.
cancer screening
colorectal neoplasms
factor analysis
individual differences
population health
psycho-oncology
Journal
Psycho-oncology
ISSN: 1099-1611
Titre abrégé: Psychooncology
Pays: England
ID NLM: 9214524
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
10 2021
10 2021
Historique:
revised:
17
05
2021
received:
04
03
2021
accepted:
23
05
2021
pubmed:
28
5
2021
medline:
25
2
2023
entrez:
27
5
2021
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
To develop and test a psychometric instrument for measuring common barriers to completing and returning home bowel cancer screening kits. One hundred and ten items were reviewed by an expert panel (n = 15) and presented in an online cross-sectional survey with 427 Australian adults. Exploratory factor analysis was used to identify an optimal factor solution of latent barrier types and aggregated factor scores were examined and compared between demographic groups. Common barriers included having already been screened (32.3%), forgetting about the kit (24.4%), and a lack of planning (21.8%). Barriers reflecting hygiene concerns were also endorsed by over 15% of the sample. Four clear barrier types were evident reflecting disgust, avoidance, lack of autonomy, and physical difficulties. Findings support calls to apply multi-faceted interventions strategies that address a broad range of barrier types, particularly that which encourage planning, and prompt and facilitate easy stool collection.
Types de publication
Journal Article
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
1756-1764Informations de copyright
© 2021 John Wiley & Sons Ltd.
Références
Bray F, Ferlay J, Soerjomataram I, Siegel RL, Torre LA, Jemal A. Global cancer statistics 2018: GLOBOCAN estimates of incidence and mortality worldwide for 36 cancers in 185 countries. CA Cancer J Clin. 2018;68(6):394-424.
Lew J-B, St John DJB, Xu X-M, et al. Long-term evaluation of benefits, harms, and cost-effectiveness of the National Bowel Cancer Screening Program in Australia: a modelling study. Lancet Publ Health. 2017;2(7):e331-e340.
Meester RG, Doubeni CA, Zauber AG, et al. Public health impact of achieving 80% colorectal cancer screening rates in the United States by 2018. Cancer. 2015;121(13):2281-2285.
Wong MC, Ching JY, Chan VC, Sung JJ. The comparative cost-effectiveness of colorectal cancer screening using faecal immunochemical test vs. colonoscopy. Sci Rep. 2015;5:13568.
Australian Institute of Health and Welfare. Analysis of Bowel cancer Outcomes for the National Bowel Cancer Screening Program 2018, Report no. 111. Canberra, Australia; 2018.
Ananda S, Wong H, Faragher I, et al. Survival impact of the Australian National Bowel Cancer Screening Programme. Intern Med J. 2016;46(2):166-171.
Navarro M, Nicolas A, Ferrandez A, Lanas A. Colorectal cancer population screening programs worldwide in 2016: an update. World J Gastroenterol. 2017;23(20):3632.
Australian Institute of Health and Welfare. National Bowel Cancer Screening Program: monitoring Report 2019. Canberra: AIHW; 2020.
Worthley DL, Cole SR, Esterman A, et al. Screening for colorectal cancer by faecal occult blood test: why people choose to refuse. Intern Med J. 2006;36(9):607-610.
Hall NJ, Rubin GP, Dobson C, et al. Attitudes and beliefs of non-participants in a population-based screening programme for colorectal cancer. Health Expect. 2015;18(5):1645-1657.
Chapple A, Ziebland S, Hewitson P, McPherson A. What affects the uptake of screening for bowel cancer using a faecal occult blood test (FOBt): a qualitative study. Soc Sci Med. 2008;66(12):2425-2435.
Goodwin BC, March S, Crawford-Williams F, Chambers SK, Dunn J. “I’m not doing that.” An in-depth examination of nonparticipation in mail-out bowel cancer screening programs. Transl Behav Med. 2020;10(6):1515-1524.
Gregory TA, Wilson C, Duncan A, Turnbull D, Cole SR, Young G. Demographic, social cognitive and social ecological predictors of intention and participation in screening for colorectal cancer. BMC Public Health. 2011;11:38.
Rawl S, Champion V, Menon U, Loehrer PJ Sr, Vance GH, Skinner CS. Validation of scales to measure benefits of and barriers to colorectal cancer screening. J Psychosoc Oncol. 2001;19(3-4):47-63.
Goodwin BC, March S, Ireland M, et al. Geographic variation in compliance with Australian colorectal cancer screening programs: the role of attitudinal and cognitive traits. Rural Remote Health. 2019;19(3):4957.
Honein-AbouHaidar GN, Kastner M, Vuong V, et al. Systematic review and meta-study synthesis of qualitative studies evaluating facilitators and barriers to participation in colorectal cancer screening. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev. 2016;25(6):907-917.
Bradley DT, Treanor C, McMullan C, Owen T, Graham A, Anderson D. Reasons for non-participation in the Northern Ireland Bowel Cancer Screening Programme: a qualitative study. BMJ Open. 2015;5(9):e008266.
Wang Y-W, Chen H-H, Wu M-S, Chiu H-M. Current status and future challenge of population-based organized colorectal cancer screening: lesson from the first decade of Taiwanese program. J Formos Med Assoc. 2018;117(5):358-364.
Champion VL, Skinner CS, Menon U, et al. A breast cancer fear scale: psychometric development. J Health Psychol. 2004;9(6):753-762.
McQueen A, Vernon SW, Swank PR. Construct definition and scale development for defensive information processing: an application to colorectal cancer screening. Health Psychol. 2013;32(2):190.
Mansfield AK, Addis ME, Courtenay W. Measurement of men’s help seeking: development and evaluation of the Barriers to Help Seeking Scale. Psychol Men Masculinity. 2005;6(2):95-108.
Thompson HS, Valdimarsdottir HB, Winkel G, Jandorf L, Redd W. The Group-Based Medical Mistrust Scale: psychometric properties and association with breast cancer screening. Prev Med. 2004;38(2):209-218.
Preventing Bowel Cancer [Internet]. Insight. SBS; 2019. https://www.sbs.com.au/ondemand/video/1469777987956/preventing-bowel-cancer. Accessed August 12, 2019.
Zamanzadeh V, Ghahramanian A, Rassouli M, Abbaszadeh A, Alavi-Majd H, Nikanfar A-R. Design and implementation content validity study: development of an instrument for measuring patient-centered communication. J Caring Sci. 2015;4(2):165-178.
Davis LL. Instrument review: Getting the most from a panel of experts. Appl Nurs Res. 1992;5(4):194-197.
Australian Bureau of Statistics. Australian Statistical Geography Standard (ASGS): Correspondences. Cat. No. 1270.0.55.006. [Internet]. Canberra: ABS; 2011. https://www.abs.gov.au/AUSSTATS/abs@.nsf/DetailsPage/1270.0.55.006July%202011?OpenDocument. Accessed November 7, 2019.
Australian Bureau of Statistics. ABS.Stat SEIFA by Local Government Area (LGA) [Internet]. Canberra: ABS; 2011. http://stat.data.abs.gov.au/Index.aspx?DataSetCode=ABS_SEIFA_LGA. Accessed November 7, 2019.
Myers L, Goodwin BC, March S, Serrano, O, Ralph, N. Interventions to increase mail-out bowel cancer screening participation: a realist review. Front Oncol. 2020;10:543732.
Durkin SJ, Broun K, Spittal MJ, Wakefield MA. Impact of a mass media campaign on participation rates in a National Bowel Cancer Screening Program: a field experiment. BMJ Open. 2019;9(1):e024267.
Goodwin BC, Ireland MJ, March S, et al. Strategies for increasing participation in mail-out colorectal cancer screening programs. A systematic review and meta-analysis. Syst Rev. 2019;(8):257.
Keleher H, Hagger V. Health literacy in primary health care. Aust J Prim Health. 2007;13(2):24-30.
Pengchit W, Walters ST, Simmons RG, et al. Motivation-based intervention to promote colonoscopy screening: an integration of a fear management model and motivational interviewing. J Health Psychol. 2011;16(8):1187-1197.
Osborne JW, Costello AB. Sample size and subject to item ratio in principal components analysis. Pract Assess Res Eval. 2004;9(1):11.
Myers L, Goodwin B, March S, Dunn J. Ways to use interventions to increase participation in mail-out bowel cancer screening: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Transl Behav Med. 2020;10(2):384-393.