Acceptability of two colorectal cancer screening tests: pain as a key determinant in sigmoidoscopy
- PMID: 28938500
- DOI: 10.1055/s-0043-117400
Acceptability of two colorectal cancer screening tests: pain as a key determinant in sigmoidoscopy
Abstract
Background Participants' experience with a screening test can influence adherence, and therefore the efficacy of screening programs. We compared screening with unsedated flexible sigmoidoscopy and fecal immunochemical testing (FIT) for participants' satisfaction with the decision and for willingness to repeat colorectal cancer screening. Methods In a prospective, randomized trial 3257 individuals (50 - 74 years) were invited to either flexible sigmoidoscopy or FIT (1:1), of whom 1650 took up the offer (52.6 %). In total, 1497 screening participants completed at least one questionnaire, either before screening, and/or at three time points in the following year, that measured willingness to repeat screening, willingness to recommend screening, and satisfaction with decision to attend. There were 769 and 728 responders in the flexible sigmoidoscopy and FIT group, respectively. Additionally, 581 flexible sigmoidoscopy participants also completed a pain questionnaire. Results 1 year later, 10 % of the flexible sigmoidoscopy participants were not willing to repeat screening, compared to 5 % of FIT participants. A higher percentage of women compared to men would not repeat flexible sigmoidoscopy screening (adjusted odds ratio [OR] 2.52, 95 % confidence interval [95 %CI] 1.48 to 4.28). Notably, 22 % of women reported pain during flexible sigmoidoscopy compared to 5 % of men. When we added pain to the statistical model, pain was significantly associated with unwillingness to repeat flexible sigmoidoscopy (OR 3.15, 95 %CI 1.68 to 5.87), while gender was no longer associated (OR 1.53, 95 %CI 0.82 to 2.88). Conclusion Acceptability for flexible sigmoidoscopy and for FIT was high among Norwegian screening participants, though FIT participants were more willing to repeat screening. Women were less willing to repeat screening with flexible sigmoidoscopy compared to men. This gender difference seemed partly due to pain, and therefore preventable.This study is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT01538550.
© Georg Thieme Verlag KG Stuttgart · New York.
Conflict of interest statement
Competing interests: None
Comment in
-
Colorectal cancer screening: with pain, no gain.Endoscopy. 2017 Nov;49(11):1031-1032. doi: 10.1055/s-0043-118216. Epub 2017 Oct 26. Endoscopy. 2017. PMID: 29073695 No abstract available.
-
[French comment on article Acceptability of two colorectal cancer screening tests: pain as a key determinant in sigmoidoscopy].Endoscopy. 2017 Nov;49(11):1127. doi: 10.1055/s-0043-120604. Epub 2017 Oct 26. Endoscopy. 2017. PMID: 29073707 French. No abstract available.
Similar articles
-
Adherence to repeat screening flexible sigmoidoscopy in the Prostate, Lung, Colorectal, and Ovarian (PLCO) Cancer Screening Trial.Cancer. 2002 May 15;94(10):2569-76. doi: 10.1002/cncr.10538. Cancer. 2002. PMID: 12173322 Clinical Trial.
-
Screening for colorectal cancer: comparison of perceived test burden of guaiac-based faecal occult blood test, faecal immunochemical test and flexible sigmoidoscopy.Eur J Cancer. 2010 Jul;46(11):2059-66. doi: 10.1016/j.ejca.2010.03.022. Epub 2010 Jun 4. Eur J Cancer. 2010. PMID: 20621736 Clinical Trial.
-
Colorectal Cancer Screening With Repeated Fecal Immunochemical Test Versus Sigmoidoscopy: Baseline Results From a Randomized Trial.Gastroenterology. 2021 Mar;160(4):1085-1096.e5. doi: 10.1053/j.gastro.2020.11.037. Epub 2020 Nov 21. Gastroenterology. 2021. PMID: 33227280 Clinical Trial.
-
Flexible sigmoidoscopy versus fecal occult blood testing for colorectal cancer screening in asymptomatic individuals.Clin J Oncol Nurs. 2014 Aug;18(4):471-2. doi: 10.1188/14.CJON.471-472. Clin J Oncol Nurs. 2014. PMID: 25095304 Review.
-
Colorectal cancer screening.J Intern Med. 2011 Aug;270(2):87-98. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2796.2011.02399.x. Epub 2011 Jun 9. J Intern Med. 2011. PMID: 21575082 Review.
Cited by
-
Colonoscopy and flexible sigmoidoscopy for follow-up of patients with left-sided diverticulitis.Ann R Coll Surg Engl. 2020 Nov;102(9):744-747. doi: 10.1308/rcsann.2020.0181. Epub 2020 Aug 21. Ann R Coll Surg Engl. 2020. PMID: 32820657 Free PMC article.
-
Patient experience, satisfaction and shared decision-making in colorectal cancer screening: protocol of the mixed-methods study CyDESA.BMJ Open. 2022 May 30;12(5):e057687. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2021-057687. BMJ Open. 2022. PMID: 35636783 Free PMC article.
-
Water immersion sigmoidoscopy versus standard insufflation for colorectal cancer screening: A cohort study.Saudi J Gastroenterol. 2022 Jan-Feb;28(1):39-45. doi: 10.4103/sjg.sjg_198_21. Saudi J Gastroenterol. 2022. PMID: 34494603 Free PMC article.
-
Experience and satisfaction of participants in colorectal cancer screening programs: a qualitative evidence synthesis.BMC Public Health. 2024 Aug 23;24(1):2293. doi: 10.1186/s12889-024-19678-1. BMC Public Health. 2024. PMID: 39180046 Free PMC article.
-
Subsequent participation in organized FIT based screening following screen-derived colonoscopy - A Danish nationwide cohort study.Prev Med Rep. 2023 Feb 3;32:102125. doi: 10.1016/j.pmedr.2023.102125. eCollection 2023 Apr. Prev Med Rep. 2023. PMID: 36816764 Free PMC article.
Publication types
MeSH terms
Associated data
LinkOut - more resources
Full Text Sources
Other Literature Sources
Medical