Research
Print page Print page
Switch language
The Capital Region of Denmark - a part of Copenhagen University Hospital
Published

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

Research output: Contribution to journalReviewResearchpeer-review

  1. Has there been an increased interest in smoking cessation during the first months of the COVID-19 pandemic? A Google Trends study

    Research output: Contribution to journalComment/debateResearchpeer-review

  2. Discrimination and stigma among people with type 2 diabetes in the workplace: prejudice against illness or obesity?

    Research output: Contribution to journalJournal articleResearchpeer-review

  3. Does losing a parent early influence the education you obtain? A nationwide cohort study in Denmark

    Research output: Contribution to journalJournal articleResearchpeer-review

  4. Trends in social inequality in loneliness among adolescents 1991-2014

    Research output: Contribution to journalJournal articleResearchpeer-review

  5. Vaccination status and needs of asylum-seeking children in Denmark: a retrospective data analysis

    Research output: Contribution to journalJournal articleResearchpeer-review

  1. Antibiotics during childhood and development of appendicitis-a nationwide cohort study

    Research output: Contribution to journalJournal articleResearchpeer-review

  2. Incisional hernia repair in women of childbearing age: A nationwide propensity-score matched study

    Research output: Contribution to journalJournal articleResearchpeer-review

  3. Advance care planning in patients with advanced cancer: A 6-country, cluster-randomised clinical trial

    Research output: Contribution to journalJournal articleResearchpeer-review

View graph of relations

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.

Original languageEnglish
JournalJournal of Public Health
Volume190
Pages (from-to)67-74
Number of pages8
ISSN1741-3842
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 21 Dec 2020

ID: 61654179