Location of Repository

Attitude to Secondary Prevention and Concerns about Colonoscopy Are Independent Predictors of Acceptance of Screening Colonoscopy

By Matthias Ziegler, Bodo Schubring-Giese, Markus Buehner and Frank Thomas Kolligs

Abstract

Background: Colonoscopy in combination with endoscopic polypectomy has been shown to be an efficient measure for reducing colorectal cancer incidence. In Germany, a colorectal cancer screening program based on colonoscopy for individuals aged 55 and above was introduced in 2002. However, for largely unknown reasons, participation rates remain low. The purpose of this study was to identify factors influencing compliance with colorectal cancer screening. Methods: A structured survey of 239 individuals aged 55-79 years ;was performed. Statistical analysis included chi(2) test, t test, principal component analysis, and logistic regression. Results: 56% of previously screened, but only 26% of non-screened individuals had received a recommendation to undergo screening colonoscopy. 50% of the non-screened believed a screening colonoscopy should only be performed in case of complaints. Univariate analysis identified participation in any secondary prevention measures (p < 0.001), concerns about colonoscopy (p < 0.012), and knowledge about colorectal cancer (p < 0.001) as critical issues distinguishing between groups. Multivariate analysis revealed that secondary prevention (p < 0.001) and concerns about colonoscopy (p = 0.026) were independent predictors of compliance with screening recommendations. Conclusion: Our survey has identified critical factors deterring compliance with colorectal cancer screening recommendations. This will help to direct future campaigns in order to increase participation in colorectal cancer screening. Copyright (C) 2010 S. Karger AG, Basel

Topics: Medizin, ddc:610
Publisher: Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität München
Year: 2010
DOI identifier: 10.1159/000223448
OAI identifier: oai:epub.ub.uni-muenchen.de:16837
Provided by: Open Access LMU

Suggested articles

Preview

Citations

  1. (2002). A prospective, controlled assessment of factors influencing acceptance of screening colonoscopy.
  2. A rationale and test for the number of factors in factor analysis.
  3. (1997). BC: Development and validation of an instrument to measure factors related to colorectal cancer screening adherence. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev
  4. (2000). Chejfec G: Use of colonosc o p y t o s c r e e n a s y m p t o m a t i c a d u l t s f o r colorectal cancer. Veterans Affairs Cooperative Study Group 380.
  5. Coates RJ: Patterns and predictors of colorectal cancer test use in the adult US population.
  6. (2003). Colorectal cancer screening attitudes and behavior: a population-based study. Prev Med
  7. Cost-effectiveness model for colon cancer screening.
  8. Ederer F: Reducing mortality from colorectal cancer by screening for fecal occult blood. Minnesota Colon Cancer Control Study.
  9. (1993). et al: Prevention of colorectal cancer by colonoscopic polypectomy. The National Polyp Study Workgroup.
  10. Gender differences in FOBT use: evidence from a large German survey. Z Gastroenterol 2008; 46(suppl 1):S47–S51.
  11. (2008). Imperiale TF: Screening, surveillance, and primary prevention for colorectal cancer: a review of the recent literature. Gastroenterology
  12. Introduction to Test and Questionnaire Construction.
  13. (2002). KN: Screening for colorectal cancer in adults at average risk: a summary of the evidence for the US Preventive Services Task Force. Ann Intern Med
  14. (1999). NC: Comparison of self-reported fecal occult blood testing with automated laboratory records among older women in a health maintenance organization.
  15. (1996). NM: Screening sigmoidoscopy. Factors associated with utilization.
  16. (1992). NS: A case-control study of screening sigmoidoscopy and mortality from colorectal cancer.
  17. (2007). PJ: Assessing attitudes toward laxative preparation in colorectal cancer screening and effects on future testing: potential receptivity to computed tomographic colonography. Mayo Clin Proc
  18. (2001). Predictors of psychosocial teaching styles in a family practice residency program. Fam Med
  19. (2000). Predictors of screening for breast, cervical, colorectal, and prostatic cancer among community-based primary care practices.
  20. (2000). Ransohoff DF: Risk of advanced proximal neoplasms in asymptomatic adults according to the distal colorectal findings.
  21. (2004). RH: Barriers to endoscopic colorectal cancer screening: are women different from men?
  22. (2005). RS: Factors associated with colon cancer screening: the role of patient factors and physician counseling. Prev Med
  23. (2002). SJ: Colorectal Cancer in Clinical Practice. Prevention, Early Detection and Management.
  24. (1996). SO: Mammography use in older women with regular physicians: what are the predictors? Am J Prev Med
  25. (2000). Sonnenberg A: Colorectal cancer prevention 2000: screening recommendations of the American College of Gastroenterology.
  26. (2007). Statistical Methods for Psychology.
  27. (1999). Survey research. Annu Rev Psychol
  28. (2003). T: Colon cancer screening practices in
  29. (2008). Thun MJ: Cancer statistics,
  30. www.zi-berlin.de: Wissenschaftliche Begleitung der Früherkennungs-Koloskopie.

To submit an update or takedown request for this paper, please submit an Update/Correction/Removal Request.