IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/socmed/v66y2008i12p2425-2435.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

What affects the uptake of screening for bowel cancer using a faecal occult blood test (FOBt): A qualitative study

Author

Listed:
  • Chapple, Alison
  • Ziebland, Sue
  • Hewitson, Paul
  • McPherson, Ann

Abstract

Screening can reduce bowel cancer mortality. The UK National Health Service Bowel Cancer Screening Programme (NHS BCSP), using the Faecal Occult Blood test (FOBt), is being introduced over three years in the UK, but in some areas uptake is disappointing. We sought to understand why some people decided to participate in screening for bowel cancer while others did not. Interviews were conducted with 44 men and women invited for screening. Most had decided to take part, some were reluctant, and a few had declined to participate. We aimed for a maximum variation sample. Reasons for accepting screening included: knowing someone with cancer, previous positive experience of women's screening programmes, being a "good citizen", previous bowel problems, and encouragement from others. Reasons for reluctance to take part included: feeling healthy, fear of outcome, lack of time, disgust at the idea of handling stools, concern about posting samples in the mail, misunderstanding instructions, and past (negative) experience or fear of colonoscopy. Theoretical models of health behaviours do not mention the sense of civic responsibility that encourages people to avert (later) costs to the NHS. This may be a particular feature of a socialized health system. Our results also suggest that people might feel more inclined to accept screening if they had current information about patients' experiences of colonoscopy and treatment for early bowel cancer.

Suggested Citation

  • Chapple, Alison & Ziebland, Sue & Hewitson, Paul & McPherson, Ann, 2008. "What affects the uptake of screening for bowel cancer using a faecal occult blood test (FOBt): A qualitative study," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 66(12), pages 2425-2435, June.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:socmed:v:66:y:2008:i:12:p:2425-2435
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0277-9536(08)00095-6
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Neilson, Aileen R. & Whynes, David K., 1995. "Determinants of persistent compliance with screening for colorectal cancer," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 41(3), pages 365-374, August.
    2. Dent, Owen F. & Bartrop, Roger & Goulston, Kerry J. & Chapuis, Pierre H., 1983. "Participation in faecal occult blood screening for colorectal cancer," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 17(1), pages 17-23, January.
    3. Jepson, Ruth Gillian & Hewison, Jenny & Thompson, Andrew & Weller, David, 2007. "Patient perspectives on information and choice in cancer screening: A qualitative study in the UK," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 65(5), pages 890-899, September.
    4. McCaffery, Kirsten & Borril, Jo & Williamson, Sara & Taylor, Tamara & Sutton, Stephen & Atkin, Wendy & Wardle, Jane, 2001. "Declining the offer of flexible sigmoidoscopy screening for bowel cancer: : a qualitative investigation of the decision-making process," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 53(5), pages 679-691, September.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. O'Carroll, Ronan E. & Chambers, Julie A. & Brownlee, Linda & Libby, Gillian & Steele, Robert J.C., 2015. "Anticipated regret to increase uptake of colorectal cancer screening (ARTICS): A randomised controlled trial," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 142(C), pages 118-127.
    2. Le Bonniec, Alice & Meade, Oonagh & Fredrix, Milou & Morrissey, Eimear & O'Carroll, Ronan E. & Murphy, Patrick J. & Murphy, Andrew W. & Mc Sharry, Jenny, 2023. "Exploring non-participation in colorectal cancer screening: A systematic review of qualitative studies," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 329(C).
    3. Dugord, Clara & Franc, Carine, 2022. "Trajectories and individual determinants of regular cancer screening use over a long period based on data from the French E3N cohort," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 294(C).

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Elyès Jouini & Clotilde Napp, 2018. "The Impact of Health-Related Emotions on Belief Formation and Behavior," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 84(3), pages 405-427, May.
    2. Trude Andreassen & Adriana Melnic & Rejane Figueiredo & Kåre Moen & Ofelia Şuteu & Florian Nicula & Giske Ursin & Elisabete Weiderpass, 2018. "Attendance to cervical cancer screening among Roma and non-Roma women living in North-Western region of Romania," International Journal of Public Health, Springer;Swiss School of Public Health (SSPH+), vol. 63(5), pages 609-619, June.
    3. Valentine, Kylie, 2010. "A consideration of medicalisation: Choice, engagement and other responsibilities of parents of children with autism spectrum disorder," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 71(5), pages 950-957, September.
    4. Martin C S Wong & Jessica Y L Ching & Hoyee H Hirai & Thomas Y T Lam & Sian M Griffiths & Francis K L Chan & Joseph J Y Sung, 2013. "Perceived Obstacles of Colorectal Cancer Screening and Their Associated Factors among 10,078 Chinese Participants," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 8(7), pages 1-10, July.
    5. Barigozzi, Francesca & Levaggi, Rosella, 2008. "Emotions in physician agency," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 88(1), pages 1-14, October.
    6. David K. Whynes & Jane L. Wolstenholme & Emma Frew, 2004. "Evidence of range bias in contingent valuation payment scales," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 13(2), pages 183-190, February.
    7. Pienaar, Kiran & Petersen, Alan & Bowman, Diana M., 2019. "Matters of fact and politics: Generating expectations of cancer screening," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 232(C), pages 408-416.
    8. Vogt, Verena & Siegel, Martin & Sundmacher, Leonie, 2014. "Examining regional variation in the use of cancer screening in Germany," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 110(C), pages 74-80.
    9. David K. Whynes & Aileen R. Neilson & Andrew R. Walker & Jack D. Hardcastle, 1998. "Faecal occult blood screening for colorectal cancer: is it cost‐effective?," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 7(1), pages 21-29, February.
    10. Frew, Emma J. & Wolstenholme, Jane L. & Whynes, David K., 2004. "Comparing willingness-to-pay: bidding game format versus open-ended and payment scale formats," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 68(3), pages 289-298, June.
    11. Whynes, David K. & Frew, Emma & Wolstenholme, Jane L., 2003. "A comparison of two methods for eliciting contingent valuations of colorectal cancer screening," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 22(4), pages 555-574, July.
    12. Beyer, Kirsten M.M. & Comstock, Sara & Seagren, Renea & Rushton, Gerard, 2011. "Explaining place-based colorectal cancer health disparities: Evidence from a rural context," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 72(3), pages 373-382, February.
    13. Emma J. Frew & David K. Whynes & Jane L. Wolstenholme, 2003. "Eliciting Willingness to Pay: Comparing Closed-Ended with Open-Ended and Payment Scale Formats," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 23(2), pages 150-159, March.
    14. Le Bonniec, Alice & Meade, Oonagh & Fredrix, Milou & Morrissey, Eimear & O'Carroll, Ronan E. & Murphy, Patrick J. & Murphy, Andrew W. & Mc Sharry, Jenny, 2023. "Exploring non-participation in colorectal cancer screening: A systematic review of qualitative studies," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 329(C).
    15. Armstrong, Natalie & Murphy, Elizabeth, 2008. "Weaving meaning? An exploration of the interplay between lay and professional understandings of cervical cancer risk," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 67(7), pages 1074-1082, October.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:socmed:v:66:y:2008:i:12:p:2425-2435. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/wps/find/journaldescription.cws_home/315/description#description .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.