Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2014 Apr 2;110(7):1705-11.
doi: 10.1038/bjc.2014.125. Epub 2014 Mar 11.

Reasons for non-uptake and subsequent participation in the NHS Bowel Cancer Screening Programme: a qualitative study

C K Palmer  1 , M C Thomas  1 , C von Wagner  2 , R Raine  1
Affiliations

Reasons for non-uptake and subsequent participation in the NHS Bowel Cancer Screening Programme: a qualitative study

C K Palmer et al. Br J Cancer. .

Abstract

Background: Screening for bowel cancer using the guaiac faecal occult blood test offered by the NHS Bowel Cancer Screening Programme (BCSP) is taken up by 54% of the eligible population. Uptake ranges from 35% in the most to 61% in the least deprived areas. This study explores reasons for non-uptake of bowel cancer screening, and examines reasons for subsequent uptake among participants who had initially not taken part in screening.

Methods: Focus groups with a socio-economically diverse sample of participants were used to explore participants' experience of invitation to and non-uptake of bowel cancer screening.

Results: Participants described sampling faeces and storing faecal samples as broaching a cultural taboo, and causing shame. Completion of the test kit within the home rather than a formal health setting was considered unsettling and reduced perceived importance. Not knowing screening results was reported to be preferable to the implications of a positive screening result. Feeling well was associated with low perceived relevance of screening. Talking about bowel cancer screening with family and peers emerged as the key to subsequent participation in screening.

Conclusions: Initiatives to normalise discussion about bowel cancer screening, to link the BCSP to general practice, and to simplify the test itself may lead to increased uptake across all social groups.

PubMed Disclaimer

Comment in

References

    1. Aubin-Auger I, Mercier A, Lebeau JP, Baumann L, Peremans L, Van Royen P. Obstacles to colorectal screening in general practice: a qualitative study of GPs and patients. Fam Pract. 2011;28 (6:670–676. - PubMed
    1. Barbour R.2010Focus groupsIn: Bourgeault I, Dingwall R, de Vries R (eds). The Sage Handbook of Qualitative Methods in Health Research Sage Publications: London; 2010327–352.
    1. Beeker C, Kraft JM, Southwell BG, Jorgensen CM. Colorectal cancer screening in older men and women: qualitative research findings and implications for intervention. J Commun Health. 2000;25 (3:263–278. - PubMed
    1. Bloor M, Frankland J, Thomas M, Robson K. Focus Groups in Social Research. Sage: London; 2001.
    1. 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. - PubMed

Publication types

MeSH terms