Barriers and facilitators to colonoscopy following fecal immunochemical test screening for colorectal cancer: A key informant interview study.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT: Objectives
People who are referred for colonoscopy, following an abnormal colorectal cancer (CRC) screening result, are at increased risk of CRC. Despite this, many individuals decline the procedure. The aim of this study was to investigate why.Methods
As little is currently known about non-attendance at follow-up colonoscopy, and follow-up of abnormal screening results is a nurse-led process, we decided to conduct key informant interviews with Specialist Screening Practitioners ([SSPs] nurses working in the English Bowel Cancer Screening Program). Interviews were conducted online. Transcripts were assessed using inductive and deductive coding techniques.Results
21 SSPs participated in an interview. Five main types of barriers and facilitators to colonoscopy were described, namely: Sociocultural, Practical, Psychological, Health-related and COVID-related. Key psychological and sociocultural factors included: 'Fear of pain and discomfort associated with the procedure' and 'Lack of support from family and friends'. Key practical, health-related and COVID-related factors included: 'Family and work commitments', 'Existing health conditions as competing priorities' and 'Fear of getting COVID-19 at the hospital'.Conclusions
A range of barriers and facilitators to follow-up colonoscopy exist. Future studies conducted with patients are needed to further explore barriers to colonoscopy.Practice implications
Strategies to reduce non-attendance should adopt a multifaceted approach.
SUBMITTER: Kerrison RS
PROVIDER: S-EPMC9214549 | biostudies-literature |
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Similar Datasets
Project description:BackgroundFor colorectal cancer (CRC) screening to improve survival, patients with an abnormal fecal immunochemical test (FIT) must follow-up with a diagnostic colonoscopy. Adherence to follow-up is low and patient-level barriers for suboptimal adherence have yet to be explored.ObjectiveTo characterize barriers for non-completion of diagnostic colonoscopy after an abnormal FIT reported by under- and uninsured patients receiving care in a safety-net health system.DesignA longitudinal, cohort study of CRC screening outreach to 8565 patients using mailed FIT kits. Patients with abnormal FIT results received telephonic navigation to arrange for a no-cost diagnostic colonoscopy.PatientsAdults aged 50-64 years receiving care at a North Texas safety-net health system.ApproachDescriptive analyses characterized the patient sample and reasons for lack of follow-up after abnormal FIT over the 3-year outreach program. Thematic qualitative analyses characterized reasons for lack of follow-up with a colonoscopy after the abnormal FIT.Key resultsOf 689 patients with an abnormal FIT, 45% (n = 314) did not complete a follow-up colonoscopy. Among the 314 non-completers, 184 patients reported reasons for not completing a follow-up colonoscopy included health insurance-related challenges (38%), comorbid conditions (37%), social barriers such as transportation difficulties and lack of social support (29%), concerns about FIT/colonoscopy process (12%), competing life priorities (12%), adverse effects of bowel preparation (3%), and poor health literacy (3%). Among the 314 non-completers, 131 patients did not report a barrier, as 51% reported that that had completed a previous colonoscopy in the past 10 years, 10% refused with no reason, and 10% were never reached by phone.ConclusionsFuture studies aimed at improving FIT screening and subsequent colonoscopy rates need to address the unique needs of patients for effective and sustainable screening programs.Trial registrationNCT01946282.
| S-EPMC6712145 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ImportanceThe effectiveness of stool-based colorectal cancer (CRC) screening, including fecal immunochemical tests (FITs), relies on colonoscopy completion among patients with abnormal results, but in safety net systems and federally qualified health centers, in which FIT is frequently used, colonoscopy completion within 1 year of an abnormal result rarely exceeds 50%. Clinician-identified factors in follow-up of abnormal FIT results are understudied and could lead to more effective interventions to address this issue.ObjectiveTo describe clinician-identified barriers and facilitators to colonoscopy completion among patients with abnormal FIT results in a safety net health care system.Design, setting, and participantsThis qualitative study was conducted using semistructured key informant interviews with primary care physicians (PCPs) and staff members in a large safety net health care system in Washington state. Eligible clinicians were recruited through all-staff meetings and clinic medical directors. Interviews were conducted from February to December 2020 through face-to-face interactions or digital meeting platforms. Interview transcripts were analyzed deductively and inductively using a content analysis approach. Data were analyzed from September through December 2020.Main outcomes and measuresBarriers and facilitators to colonoscopy completion after an abnormal FIT result were identified by PCPs and staff members.ResultsAmong 21 participants, there were 10 PCPs and 11 staff members; 20 participants provided demographic information. The median (interquartile range) age was 38.5 (33.0-51.5) years, 17 (85.0%) were women, and 9 participants (45.0%) spent more than 75% of their working time engaging in patient care. All participants identified social determinants of health, organizational factors, and patient cognitive factors as barriers to colonoscopy completion. Participants suggested that existing resources that addressed these factors facilitated colonoscopy completion but were insufficient to meet national follow-up colonoscopy goals.Conclusions and relevanceIn this qualitative study, responses of interviewed PCPs and staff members suggested that the barriers to colonoscopy completion in a safety net health system may be modifiable. These findings suggest that interventions to improve follow-up of abnormal FIT results should be informed by clinician-identified factors to address multilevel challenges to colonoscopy completion.
| S-EPMC8356069 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Background & aimsThe fecal immunochemical test (FIT) is widely used in colorectal cancer (CRC) screening. The OC-Light FIT is 1 of 2 FITs recommended for CRC screening by the Preventive Services Task Force guidelines. However, little is known about its ability to detect CRC in large average-risk populations.MethodsWe performed a retrospective cohort study of patients (50-75 years old) in the San Francisco Health Network who were screened for CRC by OC-Light FIT from August 2010 through June 2015. Patients with a positive result were referred for colonoscopy. We used electronic health records to identify participants with positive FIT results, and collected results from subsequent colonoscopies and pathology analyses. The FIT positive rate was calculated by dividing the number of positive FIT results by the total number of FIT tests completed. The primary outcome was the positive rate from OC-Light FIT and yield of neoplasms at colonoscopy. Secondary outcomes were findings from first vs subsequent rounds of testing, and how these varied by sex and race.ResultsWe collected result from 35,318 FITs, performed on 20,886 patients; 2930 patients (8.3%) had a positive result, and 1558 patients completed the follow-up colonoscopy. A positive result from the FIT identified patients with CRC with a positive predictive value of 3.0%, and patients with advanced adenoma with a positive predictive value of 20.8%. The FIT positive rate was higher during the first round of testing (9.4%) compared to subsequent rounds (7.4%) (P < .01). The yield of CRC in patients with a positive result from the first round of the FIT was 3.7%, and decreased to 1.8% for subsequent rounds (P = .02).ConclusionsIn a retrospective analysis of patients in a diverse safety-net population who underwent OC-Light FIT for CRC screening, we found that approximately 3% of patients with a positive result from a FIT to have CRC and approximately 21% to have advanced adenoma.
| S-EPMC6151285 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Background and aimDuring this COVID-19 pandemic, Taiwan is one of the few countries where fecal immunochemical test and endoscopic activity for colorectal cancer screening keeps ongoing. We aimed to investigate how screening uptake and colonoscopy rate were affected in one of the biggest screening hubs in Northern Taiwan.MethodsWe conducted a prospective observational study tracing and analyzing the screening uptake and the trend of compliance to diagnostic colonoscopy in fecal immunochemical test-positive subjects in the National Taiwan University Hospital screening hub since the outbreak of COVID-19 and compared it with that of the corresponding periods in the past 3 years. Cancellation and rescheduling rates of colonoscopy and related reasons were also explored.ResultsScreening uptake during December 2019 to April 2020 was 88.8%, which was significantly lower than that in the corresponding period of the past 3 years (91.2-92.7%, P for trend < 0.0001). Colonoscopy rate in this period was 66.1%, which was also significantly lower than that in the past 3 years (70.2-77.5%, P for trend = 0.017). Rescheduling or cancellation rate was up to 10.9%, which was significantly higher than that in the past 3 years (P for trend = 0.023), and half of them was due to the fear of being infected.ConclusionFecal immunochemical test screening was significantly affected by COVID-19 pandemic. In order to resume the practice in COVID-19 era, screening organizers should consider various approaches to secure timely diagnosis of colorectal cancer.
| S-EPMC7753615 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundA fecal test followed by diagnostic colonoscopy for a positive result is a widely endorsed screening strategy for colorectal cancer (CRC). However, the relationship between the time delay from the positive test to the follow-up colonoscopy and CRC mortality has not been established.MethodsFrom a population-based screening program, we identified CRC patients newly diagnosed from 2005 through 2015 by a positive fecal occult test followed by a colonoscopy. The primary outcome measure was CRC-specific mortality according to four categories for the time elapsed between the positive result and the subsequent colonoscopy.ResultsThe 1749 patients underwent colonoscopies within 0-3 months (n = 981, 56.1%), 4-6 months (n = 307, 17.5%), 7-12 months (n = 157, 9.0%), and later than 12 months (n = 304, 17.4%). CRC-specific deaths according to exposure groups were: 13.8% (135 of 981) for 0-3 months, 10.7% (33 of 307) for 4-6 months (crude hazards ratio [HR] = 0.74, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.51 to 1.14), 11.5% (18 of 157) for 7-12 months (crude HR = 0.83, 95% CI = 0.51 to 1.42), and 22.7% (69 of 304) for longer than 12 months (crude HR = 1.40, 95% CI = 1.04 to 1.90). The only variable that was associated with mortality risk was the number of positive slides (P = .003). High positivity was twice the value in the 0-3 as the longer-than-12 months group: 51.9% vs 25.0% and similar for the 4-6 and 7-12 months groups (38.1% and 36.5%), respectively. The adjusted HRs for CRC mortality were 0.81 (95% CI = 0.55 to 1.19); 0.83 (95% CI = 0.50 to 1.41), and 1.53 (95% CI = 1.13 to 2.12, P = .006) for the 4-12, 7-12, and longer-than-12-months groups, respectively, compared with the shortest delay group.ConclusionsAmong screen-diagnosed CRC patients, performance of colonoscopy more than 12 months after the initial positive fecal occult blood test was associated with more advanced disease and higher mortality due to CRC.
| S-EPMC6649710 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundGastric and colorectal cancer (CRC) are both one of the most common cancers worldwide. In many countries fecal immunochemical tests (FIT)-based CRC screening has been implemented. We investigated if FIT can also be applied for detection of H. pylori, the main risk factor for gastric cancer.MethodsThis prospective study included participants over 18 years of age referred for urea breath test (UBT). Patients were excluded if they had used antibiotics/bismuth in the past 4 weeks, or a proton pomp inhibitor (PPI) in the past 2 weeks. Participants underwent UBT, ELISA stool antigen test in standard feces tube (SAT), ELISA stool antigen test in FIT tube (Hp-FIT), and blood sampling, and completed a questionnaire on user friendliness. UBT results were used as reference.ResultsA total of 182 patients were included (37.4% male, median age 52.4 years (IQR 22.4)). Of these, 60 (33.0%) tested H. pylori positive. SAT and Hp-FIT showed comparable overall accuracy 71.1% (95%CI 63.2-78.3) vs. 77.6% (95%CI 70.4-83.8), respectively (p = 0.97). Sensitivity of SAT was 91.8% (95%CI 80.4-97.7) versus 94.2% (95%CI 84.1-98.9) of Hp-FIT (p = 0.98). Serology scored low with an overall accuracy of 49.7% (95%CI 41.7-57.7). Hp-FIT showed the highest overall user convenience.ConclusionsFIT can be used with high accuracy and sensitivity for diagnosis of H. pylori and is rated as the most convenient test. Non-invasive Hp-FIT test is highly promising for combined upper and lower gastrointestinal (pre-) cancerous screening. Further research should investigate the clinical implications, benefits and cost-effectiveness of such an approach.
| S-EPMC8882108 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ImportanceMailed fecal immunochemical test (FIT) outreach is more effective than colonoscopy outreach for increasing 1-time colorectal cancer (CRC) screening, but long-term effectiveness may need repeat testing and timely follow-up for abnormal results.ObjectiveCompare the effectiveness of FIT outreach and colonoscopy outreach to increase completion of the CRC screening process (screening initiation and follow-up) within 3 years.Design, setting, and participantsPragmatic randomized clinical trial from March 2013 to July 2016 among 5999 participants aged 50 to 64 years who were receiving primary care in Parkland Health and Hospital System and were not up to date with CRC screenings.InterventionsRandom assignment to mailed FIT outreach (n = 2400), mailed colonoscopy outreach (n = 2400), or usual care with clinic-based screening (n = 1199). Outreach included processes to promote repeat annual testing for individuals in the FIT outreach group with normal results and completion of diagnostic and screening colonoscopy for those with an abnormal FIT result or assigned to colonoscopy outreach.Main outcomes and measuresPrimary outcome was screening process completion, defined as adherence to colonoscopy completion, annual testing for a normal FIT result, diagnostic colonoscopy for an abnormal FIT result, or treatment evaluation if CRC was detected. Secondary outcomes included detection of any adenoma or advanced neoplasia (including CRC) and screening-related harms (including bleeding or perforation).ResultsAll 5999 participants (median age, 56 years; women, 61.9%) were included in the intention-to-screen analyses. Screening process completion was 38.4% in the colonoscopy outreach group, 28.0% in the FIT outreach group, and 10.7% in the usual care group. Compared with the usual care group, between-group differences for completion were higher for both outreach groups (27.7% [95% CI, 25.1% to 30.4%] for the colonoscopy outreach group; 17.3% [95% CI, 14.8% to 19.8%] for FIT outreach group), and highest in the colonoscopy outreach group (10.4% [95% CI, 7.8% to 13.1%] for the colonoscopy outreach group vs FIT outreach group; P < .001 for all comparisons). Compared with usual care, the between-group differences in adenoma and advanced neoplasia detection rates were higher for both outreach groups (colonoscopy outreach group: 10.3% [95% CI, 9.5% to 12.1%] for adenoma and 3.1% [95% CI, 2.0% to 4.1%] for advanced neoplasia, P < .001 for both comparisons; FIT outreach group: 1.3% [95% CI, -0.1% to 2.8%] for adenoma and 0.7% [95% CI, -0.2% to 1.6%] for advanced neoplasia, P < .08 and P < .13, respectively), and highest in the colonoscopy outreach group (colonoscopy outreach group vs FIT outreach group: 9.0% [95% CI, 7.3% to 10.7%] for adenoma and 2.4% [95% CI, 1.3% to 3.3%] for advanced neoplasia, P < .001 for both comparisons). There were no screening-related harms in any groups.Conclusions and relevanceAmong persons aged 50 to 64 years receiving primary care at a safety-net institution, mailed outreach invitations offering FIT or colonoscopy compared with usual care increased the proportion completing CRC screening process within 3 years. The rate of screening process completion was higher with colonoscopy than FIT outreach.Trial registrationclinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT01710215.
| S-EPMC5648645 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Although many people prefer fecal immunochemical test (FIT) over colonoscopy due to its noninvasive nature, it is unclear whether FIT would still be preferred for colorectal cancer (CRC) screening if they were explicitly informed that + FIT requires follow-up colonoscopy. To address this gap, we administered two conjoint analysis surveys-one that explained the need for a follow-up colonoscopy after + FIT while the other did not-to a US nationwide sample of Americans and then assessed whether there were differences in colonoscopy/FIT preferences between cohorts. We recruited adults ≥ 40yo who had not undergone CRC screening via an online survey research firm. We deployed two surveys that used conjoint analysis to assess decision making surrounding CRC screening tests: Survey 1 (4/2-4/15/2021)-did not inform participants that they need a colonoscopy following a + FIT; Survey 2 (4/29-6/2/2021)-informed respondents of the potential need. Using the conjoint analysis data, we determined the proportion of those who preferred FIT or colonoscopy and then used logistic regression to assess for differences in colonoscopy/FIT preferences between the cohorts. Overall, 501 and 1,000 individuals completed Survey 1 (without description of need for colonoscopy after + FIT) and Survey 2 (with description), respectively. There was no difference in test preference between cohorts after adjusting for covariates in the logistic regression (adjusted p = 0.09): Survey 1 (without description)-colonoscopy 28.5%, FIT 71.5%; Survey 2 (with description)-colonoscopy 26.7%, FIT 73.3%. Thus, knowledge that a + FIT requires a follow-up colonoscopy does not alter people's strong preference for non-invasive stool testing with FIT.
| S-EPMC9152796 | biostudies-literature
Project description:IntroductionThe Veterans Health Administration introduced a clinical reminder system in 2018 to help address process gaps in colorectal cancer screening, including the diagnostic evaluation of positive fecal immunochemical test (FIT) results. We conducted a qualitative study to explore the differences between facilities who performed in the top vs bottom decile for follow-up colonoscopy.MethodsSeventeen semistructured interviews with gastroenterology (GI) providers and staff were conducted at 9 high-performing and 8 low-performing sites.ResultsWe identified 2 domains, current practices and perceived barriers, and most findings were described by both high- and low-performing sites. Findings exclusive to 1 group mainly pertained to current practices, especially arranging colonoscopy for FIT-positive patients. We observed only 1 difference in the perceived barriers domain, which pertained to primary care providers.DiscussionThese results suggest that what primarily distinguishes high- and low-performing sites is not a difference in barriers but rather in the GI clinical care process. Developing and disseminating patient education materials about the importance of diagnostic colonoscopy, eliminating in-person precolonoscopy visits when clinically appropriate, and involving GI in missed colonoscopy appointments and outside referrals should all be considered to increase follow-up colonoscopy rates. Our study illustrates the challenges of performing a timely colonoscopy after a positive FIT result and provides insights on improving the clinical care process for patients who are at substantially increased risk for colorectal cancer.
| S-EPMC8865517 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundMany screening programs for colorectal cancer (CRC) use the fecal immunochemical test (FIT) to triage individuals for colonoscopy. Although these programs reduce CRC incidence and CRC-related mortality, the detection of advanced precursor lesions (advanced adenomas and advanced serrated polyps) by FIT could be improved. As an alternative for FIT, the antibody-based multitargetFIT (mtFIT) has been proposed. The mtFIT measures three protein markers: hemoglobin, calprotectin, and serpin family F member 2. In a retrospective diagnostic accuracy study in a large colonoscopy-controlled series (n = 1284), mtFIT showed increased sensitivity for advanced neoplasia (AN), at equal specificity, compared to FIT (42.9% versus 37.3%; p = 0.025). This increase was mainly due to a higher sensitivity of mtFIT for advanced adenomas (37.8% versus 28.1% for FIT; p = 0.006). The present mtFIT study aims to prospectively validate these findings in the context of the Dutch national CRC screening program.MethodThe mtFIT study is a cross-sectional intervention study with a paired design. Eligible subjects for the Dutch FIT-based national CRC screening program are invited to perform mtFIT in addition to FIT. Samples are collected at home, from the same bowel movement, and are shipped to a central laboratory by postal mail. If either one or both tests are positive, participants are referred for colonoscopy. Detailed colonoscopy and pathology data are centrally stored in a national screening database (ScreenIT; Topicus, Deventer, the Netherlands) that is managed by the screening organization, and will be retrieved for this study. We aim to determine the relative sensitivity for AN, comprising of CRC, advanced adenomas and advanced serrated polyps, of mtFIT compared to FIT at an equal positivity rate. Additionally, we will use the Adenoma and Serrated Pathway to Colorectal CAncer model to predict lifetime health effects and costs for programmatic mtFIT- versus FIT-based screening. The target sample size is 13,131 participants.DiscussionThe outcome of this study will inform on the comparative clinical utility of mtFIT versus FIT in the Dutch national CRC screening program and is an important step forward in the development of a new non-invasive stool test for CRC screening.Trial registrationClinicaltrials.gov ; NCT05314309, registered April 6th 2022, first inclusions March 25th 2022 https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/results?cond=&term=NCT05314309&cntry=&state=&city=&dist =.
| S-EPMC9743627 | biostudies-literature