TY - JOUR
T1 - Screening for colorectal cancer
T2 - Comparison of perceived test burden of guaiac-based faecal occult blood test, faecal immunochemical test and flexible sigmoidoscopy
AU - Hol, L.
AU - De Jonge, V.
AU - Van Leerdam, M. E.
AU - Van Ballegooijen, M.
AU - Looman, C. W.N.
AU - Van Vuuren, A. J.
AU - Reijerink, J. C.I.Y.
AU - Habbema, J. D.F.
AU - Essink-Bot, M. L.
AU - Kuipers, E. J.
PY - 2010/7
Y1 - 2010/7
N2 - Background: Perceived burden of colorectal cancer (CRC) screening is an important determinant of participation in subsequent screening rounds and therefore crucial for the effectiveness of a screening programme. This study determined differences in perceived burden and willingness to return for a second screening round among participants of a randomised population-based trial comparing a guaiac-based faecal occult blood test (gFOBT), a faecal immunochemical test (FIT) and flexible sigmoidoscopy (FS) screening. Methods: A representative sample of the Dutch population (aged 50-74 years) was randomised to be invited for gFOBT, FIT and FS screening. A random sample of participants of each group was asked to complete a questionnaire about test burden and willingness to return for CRC screening. Results: In total 402/481 (84%) gFOBT, 530/659 (80%) FIT and 852/1124 (76%) FS screenees returned the questionnaire. The test was reported as burdensome by 2.5% of gFOBT, 1.4% of FIT and 12.9% of FS screenees (comparing gFOBT versus FIT p = 0.05; versus FS p < 0.001). In total 94.1% of gFOBT, 94.0% of FIT and 83.8% of FS screenees were willing to attend successive screening rounds (comparing gFOBT versus FIT p = 0.84; versus FS p < 0.001). Women reported more burden during FS screening than men (18.2% versus 7.7%; p < 0.001). Conclusions: FIT slightly outperforms gFOBT with a lower level of reported discomfort and overall burden. Both FOBTs are better accepted than FS screening. All three tests have a high level of acceptance, which may affect uptake of subsequent screening rounds and should be taken into consideration before implementing a CRC screening programme.
AB - Background: Perceived burden of colorectal cancer (CRC) screening is an important determinant of participation in subsequent screening rounds and therefore crucial for the effectiveness of a screening programme. This study determined differences in perceived burden and willingness to return for a second screening round among participants of a randomised population-based trial comparing a guaiac-based faecal occult blood test (gFOBT), a faecal immunochemical test (FIT) and flexible sigmoidoscopy (FS) screening. Methods: A representative sample of the Dutch population (aged 50-74 years) was randomised to be invited for gFOBT, FIT and FS screening. A random sample of participants of each group was asked to complete a questionnaire about test burden and willingness to return for CRC screening. Results: In total 402/481 (84%) gFOBT, 530/659 (80%) FIT and 852/1124 (76%) FS screenees returned the questionnaire. The test was reported as burdensome by 2.5% of gFOBT, 1.4% of FIT and 12.9% of FS screenees (comparing gFOBT versus FIT p = 0.05; versus FS p < 0.001). In total 94.1% of gFOBT, 94.0% of FIT and 83.8% of FS screenees were willing to attend successive screening rounds (comparing gFOBT versus FIT p = 0.84; versus FS p < 0.001). Women reported more burden during FS screening than men (18.2% versus 7.7%; p < 0.001). Conclusions: FIT slightly outperforms gFOBT with a lower level of reported discomfort and overall burden. Both FOBTs are better accepted than FS screening. All three tests have a high level of acceptance, which may affect uptake of subsequent screening rounds and should be taken into consideration before implementing a CRC screening programme.
KW - Burden
KW - Colorectal cancer
KW - Faecal immunochemical test
KW - Flexible sigmoidoscopy
KW - Guaiac-based faecal occult blood test
KW - Population-based screening
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=77954212972&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=77954212972&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1016/j.ejca.2010.03.022
DO - 10.1016/j.ejca.2010.03.022
M3 - Article
C2 - 20621736
AN - SCOPUS:77954212972
SN - 0959-8049
VL - 46
SP - 2059
EP - 2066
JO - European Journal of Cancer
JF - European Journal of Cancer
IS - 11
ER -