UCL  IRIS
Institutional Research Information Service
UCL Logo
Please report any queries concerning the funding data grouped in the sections named "Externally Awarded" or "Internally Disbursed" (shown on the profile page) to your Research Finance Administrator. Your can find your Research Finance Administrator at https://www.ucl.ac.uk/finance/research/rs-contacts.php by entering your department
Please report any queries concerning the student data shown on the profile page to:

Email: portico-services@ucl.ac.uk

Help Desk: http://www.ucl.ac.uk/ras/portico/helpdesk
Publication Detail
Preferences for different diagnostic modalities to follow up abnormal colorectal cancer screening results: a hypothetical vignette study.
  • Publication Type:
    Journal article
  • Publication Sub Type:
    Article
  • Authors:
    Kaushal A, Stoffel ST, Kerrison R, von Wagner C
  • Publication date:
    26/07/2020
  • Pagination:
    e035264
  • Journal:
    BMJ Open
  • Volume:
    10
  • Issue:
    7
  • Status:
    Published
  • Country:
    England
  • PII:
    bmjopen-2019-035264
  • Language:
    eng
  • Keywords:
    endoscopy, preventive medicine, public health
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: In England, a significant proportion of people who take part in the national bowel cancer screening programme (BCSP) and have a positive faecal occult blood test (FOBt) result, do not attend follow-up colonoscopy (CC). The aim of this study was to investigate differences in intended participation in a follow-up investigation by diagnostic modality offered including CC, CT colonography (CTC) or capsule endoscopy (CE). SETTING: We performed a randomised online experiment with individuals who had previously completed an FOBt as part of the English BCSP. METHODS: Participants (n=953) were randomly allocated to receive one of three online vignettes asking participants to imagine they had received an abnormal FOBt result, and that they had been invited for a follow-up test. The follow-up test offered was either: CC (n=346), CTC (n=302) or CE (n=305). Participants were then asked how likely they were to have their allocated test or if they refused, either of the other tests. Respondents were also asked to cite possible emotional and practical barriers to follow up testing. Multivariable logistic regression models were used to investigate intentions. RESULTS: Intention to have the test was higher in the CTC group (96.7%) compared with the CC group (91.8%; OR 2.64; 95% CI 1.22 to 5.73). CTC was considered less 'off-putting' (OR 0.66, 95% CI 0.47 to 0.94) and less uncomfortable compared with CC (OR 0.51, 95% CI 0.34 to 0.77). For those who did not intend to have the test they were offered, CE (39.7%) or no investigation (34.5%) was preferable to CC (8.6%) or CTC (17.2%). CONCLUSIONS: Alternative tests have the potential to increase attendance at diagnostic follow-up appointments.
Publication data is maintained in RPS. Visit https://rps.ucl.ac.uk
 More search options
UCL Researchers
Author
Epidemiology & Public Health
Author
Behavioural Science and Health
University College London - Gower Street - London - WC1E 6BT Tel:+44 (0)20 7679 2000

© UCL 1999–2011

Search by