Non- or full-laxative CT colonography vs. endoscopic tests for colorectal cancer screening: a randomised survey comparing public perceptions and intentions to undergo testing
- PMID: 24817084
- PMCID: PMC4046085
- DOI: 10.1007/s00330-014-3187-9
Non- or full-laxative CT colonography vs. endoscopic tests for colorectal cancer screening: a randomised survey comparing public perceptions and intentions to undergo testing
Abstract
Objectives: Compare public perceptions and intentions to undergo colorectal cancer screening tests following detailed information regarding CT colonography (CTC; after non-laxative preparation or full-laxative preparation), optical colonoscopy (OC) or flexible sigmoidoscopy (FS).
Methods: A total of 3,100 invitees approaching screening age (45-54 years) were randomly allocated to receive detailed information on a single test and asked to return a questionnaire. Outcomes included perceptions of preparation and test tolerability, health benefits, sensitivity and specificity, and intention to undergo the test.
Results: Six hundred three invitees responded with valid questionnaire data. Non-laxative preparation was rated more positively than enema or full-laxative preparations [effect size (r) = 0.13 to 0.54; p < 0.0005 to 0.036]; both forms of CTC and FS were rated more positively than OC in terms of test experience (r = 0.26 to 0.28; all p-values < 0.0005). Perceptions of health benefits, sensitivity and specificity (p = 0.250 to 0.901), and intention to undergo the test (p = 0.213) did not differ between tests (n = 144-155 for each test).
Conclusions: Despite non-laxative CTC being rated more favourably, this study did not find evidence that offering it would lead to substantially higher uptake than full-laxative CTC or other methods. However, this study was limited by a lower than anticipated response rate.
Key points: • Improving uptake of colorectal cancer screening tests could improve health benefits • Potential invitees rate CTC and flexible sigmoidoscopy more positively than colonoscopy • Non-laxative bowel preparation is rated better than enema or full-laxative preparations • These positive perceptions alone may not be sufficient to improve uptake • Health benefits and accuracy are rated similarly for preventative screening tests.
Figures
Similar articles
-
Quantifying public preferences for different bowel preparation options prior to screening CT colonography: a discrete choice experiment.BMJ Open. 2014 Apr 3;4(4):e004327. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2013-004327. BMJ Open. 2014. PMID: 24699460 Free PMC article.
-
Full-laxative versus minimum-laxative fecal-tagging CT colonography using 64-detector row CT: prospective blinded comparison of diagnostic performance, tagging quality, and patient acceptance.Acad Radiol. 2009 Jul;16(7):780-9. doi: 10.1016/j.acra.2008.12.027. Epub 2009 Apr 17. Acad Radiol. 2009. PMID: 19375954 Clinical Trial.
-
Burden of colonoscopy compared to non-cathartic CT-colonography in a colorectal cancer screening programme: randomised controlled trial.Gut. 2012 Nov;61(11):1552-9. doi: 10.1136/gutjnl-2011-301308. Epub 2011 Dec 23. Gut. 2012. PMID: 22198714 Clinical Trial.
-
Screening for Colorectal Cancer: An Updated Systematic Review [Internet].Rockville (MD): Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (US); 2008 Oct. Report No.: 08-05-05124-EF-1. Rockville (MD): Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (US); 2008 Oct. Report No.: 08-05-05124-EF-1. PMID: 20722162 Free Books & Documents. Review.
-
Alternatives to colonoscopy for population-wide colorectal cancer screening.Hong Kong Med J. 2016 Feb;22(1):70-7. doi: 10.12809/hkmj154685. Epub 2016 Jan 8. Hong Kong Med J. 2016. PMID: 26744124 Review.
Cited by
-
Public preferences for using quantitative faecal immunochemical test versus colonoscopy as diagnostic test for colorectal cancer: evidence from an online survey.BJGP Open. 2020 May 1;4(1):bjgpopen20X101007. doi: 10.3399/bjgpopen20X101007. Print 2020. BJGP Open. 2020. PMID: 32019773 Free PMC article.
-
Computed tomography colonography versus colonoscopy for the diagnosis of colorectal cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Ther Clin Risk Manag. 2018 Feb 21;14:349-360. doi: 10.2147/TCRM.S152147. eCollection 2018. Ther Clin Risk Manag. 2018. PMID: 29503554 Free PMC article. Review.
-
Using a hypothetical scenario to assess public preferences for colorectal surveillance following screening-detected, intermediate-risk adenomas: annual home-based stool test vs. triennial colonoscopy.BMC Gastroenterol. 2016 Sep 13;16(1):113. doi: 10.1186/s12876-016-0517-1. BMC Gastroenterol. 2016. PMID: 27618798 Free PMC article.
-
Robotic, self-propelled, self-steerable, and disposable colonoscopes: Reality or pipe dream? A state of the art review.World J Gastroenterol. 2022 Sep 21;28(35):5093-5110. doi: 10.3748/wjg.v28.i35.5093. World J Gastroenterol. 2022. PMID: 36188716 Free PMC article. Review.
-
Patients' experience of screening CT colonography with reduced and full bowel preparation in a randomised trial.Eur Radiol. 2019 May;29(5):2457-2464. doi: 10.1007/s00330-018-5808-1. Epub 2018 Nov 6. Eur Radiol. 2019. PMID: 30402705 Clinical Trial.
References
-
- The NHS Information Centre for Health and Social Care (2012) Breast Screening Programme, England 2010–2011, p 1–127
-
- The NHS Information Centre for Health and Social Care (2011) Cervical screening programme, England 2010–2011, p 1–108
Publication types
MeSH terms
Substances
Associated data
Grants and funding
LinkOut - more resources
Full Text Sources
Other Literature Sources
Medical