Self-Reported Reasons for Inconsistent Participation in Colorectal Cancer Screening Using FIT in Flanders, Belgium

Background: In Flanders, the uptake in the population-based colorectal cancer (CRC) screening program (using fecal immunochemical test, FIT) is suboptimal (~50%). This study explored the reasons for inconsistent participation in FIT screening among irregular participants in Flanders. Methods: An online survey with both open questions and fixed statements was sent to irregular participants (2016–2018) in the Flemish CRC screening program. A reminder email followed eight weeks after the first email. Data analysis used both qualitative and quantitative approaches. Post-stratification weights based on gender, age group, and the first two digits of the postcode were employed to reduce non-response bias. Results: In total, 5328 out of 19,592 irregular participants responded to the survey. While the main reasons not to participate were related to ‘postponing participation’ and ‘having other priorities’, the main reasons to participate were related to the importance of (preventive) health checks. The role of general practitioners (GPs) in promoting CRC screening also emerged as an important theme among the respondents’ answers (based on fixed statements). Conclusions: The study reported the main reasons for inconsistent participation in FIT screening for CRC in Flanders. The findings are helpful in guiding tailored interventions to increase FIT screening uptake in the region.

Barriers and facilitators to participate in the colorectal cancer screening programme in Flanders (Belgium): a focus group study

OBJECTIVE

In Flanders (Belgium), a population-based colorectal cancer (CRC) screening programme offers a faecal immunochemical test (FIT) biennially to Flemish citizens aged 50-74 years. A FIT uptake of only 51,5% in 2018 is significantly lower among men, lower income groups and among people with other than the Belgian nationality.The objective of this study was to identify attitudes, barriers and facilitators to participate in the Flemish CRC screening programme.

METHODS

Qualitative study using focus group discussions (FGDs) with non-participants in the Flemish CRC screening programme. Four FGDs were held with non-migrant Flemish population groups, and four were held with Turkish migrants (41 participants).

RESULTS

Feeling healthy, fear of cancer and embarrassment to talk about CRC screening emerged as common barriers in all FGDs. Having other priorities (non-migrant group) and a lack of understanding mainly due to a language barrier (Turkish migrants) differed between the two groups. Providing face-to-face information, information in group and GP recommendation were perceived as important facilitators to CRC screening in both groups. More publicity and making CRC screening more of a routine (non-migrant group) and offering translated information (Turkish migrants) were the suggested facilitators that differed between the groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Several common and some group-specific barriers and facilitators appeared to play a role in the decision to participate in the CRC screening programme. In order to improve informed decision making and participation in the CRC screening programme in Flanders, the options of more GP involvement, targeted information events, and adapted reminder letters are currently being explored.

Barriers and facilitators to participation in breast, bowel and cervical cancer screening in rural Victoria: A qualitative study

Issue addressed

Population cancer screening rates are around 50% for the general population and even lower in rural areas. This study aimed to explore knowledge, attitudes, behaviours, motivators and barriers to breast, bowel and cervical screening participation in under‐screened men and women.

Methods

We used a qualitative research design. Focus groups were segmented by age, sex and screening participation. Participants were under‐screened in at least one of the cancer screening programs, with separate groups for each of the programs. The discussion guides were designed around the Health Belief Model and group discussions were coded using a thematic content analysis approach.

Results

Fourteen focus groups were held with 80 participants. Key themes were that the concept of cancer screening was not well understood, a low priority for preventive health behaviours, issues relating to local general practitioners (GP) and screening was unpleasant, embarrassing and/or inconvenient. A key determinant of participation in cancer screening was exposure to prompts to action, and it was evident that participants often required multiple prompts before they took action.

Conclusions

Opportunities that develop attitudes to health that place disease prevention as a high priority; improve understanding of the benefit of screening in terms of early detection and treatment; improve GP availability and the patient‐practitioner relationship; and the development of messages for each of the screening programs should be further explored as factors that may influence rural population screening rates.

So what?

Addressing health attitudes, beliefs, knowledge, health practitioner and test‐related barriers and improving messaging may increase cancer screening participation in under‐screened rural populations.

Motives for non-adherence to colonoscopy advice after a positive colorectal cancer screening test result: a qualitative study

SETTING

Participants with a positive faecal immunochemical test (FIT) in screening programs for colorectal cancer (CRC) have a high risk for colorectal cancer and advanced adenomas. They are therefore recommended follow-up by colonoscopy. However, more than ten percent of positively screened persons do not adhere to this advice.

OBJECTIVE

To investigate FIT-positive individuals' motives for non-adherence to colonoscopy advice in the Dutch CRC screening program.

SUBJECTS

Non-adherent FIT-positive participants of the Dutch CRC screening program.

DESIGN

We conducted semi structured in-depth interviews with 17 persons who did not undergo colonoscopy within 6 months after a positive FIT. Interviews were undertaken face-to-face and data were analysed thematically with open coding and constant comparison.

RESULTS

All participants had multifactorial motives for non-adherence. A preference for more personalised care was described with the following themes: aversion against the design of the screening program, expectations of personalised care, emotions associated with experiences of impersonal care and a desire for counselling where options other than colonoscopy could be discussed. Furthermore, intrinsic motives were: having a perception of low risk for CRC (described by all participants), aversion and fear of colonoscopy, distrust, reluctant attitude to the treatment of cancer and cancer fatalism. Extrinsic motives were: having other health issues or priorities, practical barriers, advice from a general practitioner (GP) and financial reasons.

CONCLUSION

Personalised screening counselling might have helped to improve the interviewees' experiences with the screening program as well as their knowledge on CRC and CRC screening. Future studies should explore whether personalised screening counselling also has potential to increase adherence rates. Key points Participants with a positive FIT in two-step colorectal cancer (CRC) screening programs are at high risk for colorectal cancer and advanced adenomas. Non-adherence after an unfavourable screening result happens in all CRC programs worldwide with the consequence that many of the participants do not undergo colonoscopy for the definitive assessment of the presence of colorectal cancer. Little qualitative research has been done to study the reasons why individuals participate in the first step of the screening but not in the second step. We found a preference for more personalised care, which was not reported in previous literature on this subject. Furthermore, intrinsic factors, such as a low risk perception and distrust, and extrinsic factors, such as the presence of other health issues and GP advice, may also play a role in non-adherence. A person-centred approach in the form of a screening counselling session may be beneficial for this group of CRC screening participants.

General practitioners' perceptions of population based bowel screening and their influence on practice: a qualitative study

Background

Although largely preventable, Australia has one of the highest rates of bowel cancer in the world. General Practitioners (GPs) have an important role to play in prevention and early detection of bowel cancer, however in Australia this is yet to be optimised and participation remains low. This study sought to understand how GPs’ perceptions of bowel screening influence their attitudes to, and promotion of the faecal occult blood test (FOBT), to identify opportunities to enhance their role.

Methods

Interviews were conducted with 31 GPs from metropolitan and regional New South Wales (NSW), Australia. Discussions canvassed GPs’ perceptions of their role in bowel screening and the national screening program; perceptions of screening tests; practices regarding discussing screening with patients; and views on opportunities to enhance their role. Transcripts were coded using Nvivo and thematically analysed.

Results

The study revealed GPs’ perceptions of screening did not always align with broader public health definitions of ‘population screening’. While many GPs reportedly understood the purpose of population screening, notions of the role of asymptomatic screening for bowel cancer prevention were more limited. Descriptions of screening centred on two major uses: the use of a screening ‘process’ to identify individual patients at higher risk; and the use of screening ‘tools’, including the FOBT, to aid diagnosis. While the FOBT was perceived as useful for identifying patients requiring follow up, GPs expressed concerns about its reliability. Colonoscopy by comparison, was considered by many as the gold standard for both screening and diagnosis. This perception reflects a conceptualisation of the screening process and associated tools as an individualised method for risk assessment and diagnosis, rather than a public health strategy for prevention of bowel cancer.

Conclusion

The results show that GPs’ perceptions of screening do not always align with broader public health definitions of ‘population screening’. Furthermore, the way GPs understood screening was shown to impact their clinical practice, influencing their preferences for, and use of ‘screening’ tools such as FOBT. The findings suggest emphasising the preventative opportunity of FOBT screening would be beneficial, as would formally engaging GPs in the promotion of bowel screening.