Forskning
Udskriv Udskriv
Switch language
Region Hovedstaden - en del af Københavns Universitetshospital
Udgivet

Factors affecting patient adherence to publicly funded colorectal cancer screening programmes: a systematic review

Publikation: Bidrag til tidsskriftReviewForskningpeer review

Harvard

APA

CBE

MLA

Vancouver

Author

Bibtex

@article{8ccab4f4a798412199d128be61385b9d,
title = "Factors affecting patient adherence to publicly funded colorectal cancer screening programmes: a systematic review",
abstract = "OBJECTIVES: Colorectal cancer (CRC) is the third most common cancer. Many countries in Europe have already implemented systematic screening programmes as per the recommendations by the European Union. The impact of screening is highly dependent on participation rates. The aim of the study was to identify barriers, facilitators and modifiers to participation in systematised, stool sample-based, publicly financed CRC screening programmes.STUDY DESIGN: Systematic review.METHODS: A systematic search in PubMed, Embase, MEDLINE, CINAHL, Cochrane CENTRAL, Google Scholar and PsycINFO was undertaken. We included both qualitative and quantitative studies reporting on barriers and facilitators (excluding sociodemographic variables) to participation in stool sample-based CRC screening. Barriers and facilitators to participation were summarised and analysed.RESULTS: The inclusion criteria were met in 21 studies. Reported barriers and facilitators were categorised into the following seven themes (examples): psychology (fear of cancer), religion (believing cancer is the will of God), logistics (not knowing how to conduct the test), health-related factors (mental health), knowledge and awareness (lack of knowledge about the test), role of the general practitioner (being supported in taking the test by the general practitioner), and environmental factors (knowing someone who has participated in a screening programme). Six studies reported that non-participation was not due to a negative attitude towards screening for CRC.CONCLUSION: Many barriers to screening were found. It is important to work with peoples' fear of screening. Moreover, this review suggests that it might be possible to increase participation rates, if the population-wide awareness and knowledge of potential health benefits of CRC screening are increased and proper logistical support is provided.",
keywords = "Barriers, Colorectal cancer, Mixed methods, Review, Screening, Stool sample, Patient Participation/psychology, Attitude to Health, Humans, Social Support, Male, Mental Health, Health Knowledge, Attitudes, Practice, Practice Patterns, Physicians', Colorectal Neoplasms/diagnosis, Fear, Patient Compliance/psychology, Patient Acceptance of Health Care, Health Services Accessibility, Mass Screening/psychology, Early Detection of Cancer/psychology, Female, Intention",
author = "J Dressler and Johnsen, {A T} and Madsen, {Laura Juul} and M Rasmussen and Jorgensen, {L N}",
note = "Publisher Copyright: {\textcopyright} 2020 The Royal Society for Public Health Copyright: Copyright 2021 Elsevier B.V., All rights reserved.",
year = "2021",
month = jan,
doi = "10.1016/j.puhe.2020.10.025",
language = "English",
volume = "190",
pages = "67--74",
journal = "Journal of Public Health",
issn = "1741-3842",
publisher = "Oxford University Press",

}

RIS

TY - JOUR

T1 - Factors affecting patient adherence to publicly funded colorectal cancer screening programmes

T2 - a systematic review

AU - Dressler, J

AU - Johnsen, A T

AU - Madsen, Laura Juul

AU - Rasmussen, M

AU - Jorgensen, L N

N1 - Publisher Copyright: © 2020 The Royal Society for Public Health Copyright: Copyright 2021 Elsevier B.V., All rights reserved.

PY - 2021/1

Y1 - 2021/1

N2 - OBJECTIVES: Colorectal cancer (CRC) is the third most common cancer. Many countries in Europe have already implemented systematic screening programmes as per the recommendations by the European Union. The impact of screening is highly dependent on participation rates. The aim of the study was to identify barriers, facilitators and modifiers to participation in systematised, stool sample-based, publicly financed CRC screening programmes.STUDY DESIGN: Systematic review.METHODS: A systematic search in PubMed, Embase, MEDLINE, CINAHL, Cochrane CENTRAL, Google Scholar and PsycINFO was undertaken. We included both qualitative and quantitative studies reporting on barriers and facilitators (excluding sociodemographic variables) to participation in stool sample-based CRC screening. Barriers and facilitators to participation were summarised and analysed.RESULTS: The inclusion criteria were met in 21 studies. Reported barriers and facilitators were categorised into the following seven themes (examples): psychology (fear of cancer), religion (believing cancer is the will of God), logistics (not knowing how to conduct the test), health-related factors (mental health), knowledge and awareness (lack of knowledge about the test), role of the general practitioner (being supported in taking the test by the general practitioner), and environmental factors (knowing someone who has participated in a screening programme). Six studies reported that non-participation was not due to a negative attitude towards screening for CRC.CONCLUSION: Many barriers to screening were found. It is important to work with peoples' fear of screening. Moreover, this review suggests that it might be possible to increase participation rates, if the population-wide awareness and knowledge of potential health benefits of CRC screening are increased and proper logistical support is provided.

AB - OBJECTIVES: Colorectal cancer (CRC) is the third most common cancer. Many countries in Europe have already implemented systematic screening programmes as per the recommendations by the European Union. The impact of screening is highly dependent on participation rates. The aim of the study was to identify barriers, facilitators and modifiers to participation in systematised, stool sample-based, publicly financed CRC screening programmes.STUDY DESIGN: Systematic review.METHODS: A systematic search in PubMed, Embase, MEDLINE, CINAHL, Cochrane CENTRAL, Google Scholar and PsycINFO was undertaken. We included both qualitative and quantitative studies reporting on barriers and facilitators (excluding sociodemographic variables) to participation in stool sample-based CRC screening. Barriers and facilitators to participation were summarised and analysed.RESULTS: The inclusion criteria were met in 21 studies. Reported barriers and facilitators were categorised into the following seven themes (examples): psychology (fear of cancer), religion (believing cancer is the will of God), logistics (not knowing how to conduct the test), health-related factors (mental health), knowledge and awareness (lack of knowledge about the test), role of the general practitioner (being supported in taking the test by the general practitioner), and environmental factors (knowing someone who has participated in a screening programme). Six studies reported that non-participation was not due to a negative attitude towards screening for CRC.CONCLUSION: Many barriers to screening were found. It is important to work with peoples' fear of screening. Moreover, this review suggests that it might be possible to increase participation rates, if the population-wide awareness and knowledge of potential health benefits of CRC screening are increased and proper logistical support is provided.

KW - Barriers

KW - Colorectal cancer

KW - Mixed methods

KW - Review

KW - Screening

KW - Stool sample

KW - Patient Participation/psychology

KW - Attitude to Health

KW - Humans

KW - Social Support

KW - Male

KW - Mental Health

KW - Health Knowledge, Attitudes, Practice

KW - Practice Patterns, Physicians'

KW - Colorectal Neoplasms/diagnosis

KW - Fear

KW - Patient Compliance/psychology

KW - Patient Acceptance of Health Care

KW - Health Services Accessibility

KW - Mass Screening/psychology

KW - Early Detection of Cancer/psychology

KW - Female

KW - Intention

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85098233359&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1016/j.puhe.2020.10.025

DO - 10.1016/j.puhe.2020.10.025

M3 - Review

C2 - 33360029

VL - 190

SP - 67

EP - 74

JO - Journal of Public Health

JF - Journal of Public Health

SN - 1741-3842

ER -

ID: 61654179