Experience and Attitude of Colorectal Screening Pilot Program Participants Regarding Screening and Screening Programs in Hungary
-
Zsuzsanna Kives
,
N Dóra Endrei
,
Réka Vajda
,
Orsolya Máté
,
Noémi Németh
,
Áron Vincze
,
Imre Boncz
Abstract
Background: In 2015, in Csongrád County (Hungary), a general practitioner based colorectal screening model program was implemented by the financial support of the European Union. Our aim was to evaluate the indicators of screening program and to analyze the experiences and attitude of participants of colorectal screening pilot program.
Methods: The colon cancer screening pilot programme was carried out in 2015 involving an average-risk population aged 50-69 in Csongrád county, Hungary (invited 22 130 persons). The screening method was iFOBT, the attendance rate was 51.2%. Overall, 5580 patients out of the 10374 participants completed the self-compiled questionnaire concerning socio-demographic data, current screening programs, stool sampling problems, invitation letters, information sources and future willingness of participation.
Results: The response rate was 53%. 46.7% of the respondents had not heard about colorectal screening prior to the screening program. Participants with elementary education level mostly indicated physicians as primary information sources [OR: 2.72 (CI: 1.59-4.66)] than patients higher education level. 67.5% of patients decided alone about participation on screening. Among women, decisions supported by acquaintances were specific [OR: 2.05 (1.06-3.95]. 82.6% determined the iFOB test as an entirely accepted screening method. Medical advice is an important predictor of screening participation. If respondents were to receive an invitation after two years, 91.5% would be involved in the screening.
Conclusion: The respondents were satisfied with the screening program. Awareness raising of men, lower educated patients, those living in major cities, and recommendation of the family physician may increase the participation rate in the future.
2. Ferlay J, Steliarova-Foucher E, Lortet-Tieulent J et al. (2013). Cancer incidence and mortality patterns in Europe: estimates for 40 countries in 2012. Eur J Cancer, 49: 1374-403.
3. National Cancer Registry of the National Institute of Oncology [Last accessed on 2021 Jun 20]
4. Kásler M, Ottó Sz, Kenessey I (2017). [The current situation of cancer morbidity and mortality in the light of the National Cancer Registry]. Orv Hetil, 158: 84–89.
5. Boncz I, Sebestyen A, Pinter I et al. (2007). Age-group specific gap between treatment cost of and mor-tality due to breast and colorectal cancer. J Clin On-col, 25: 4501-4502.
6. Boncz I, Evetovits T, Dózsa Cs et al. (2015). The Hungarian Care Managing Organization Pilot Program. Value Health Reg Issues, 7: 27-33.
7. Betlehem J, Horvath A, Jeges S et al. (2014). How healthy are ambulance personnel in Central Eu-rope? Eval Health Prof, 37: 394-406.
8. Boncz I, Sebestyen A (2006). Financial deficits in the health services of the UK and Hungary. Lancet, 368: 917-918.
9. Molics B, Boncz I, Leidecker E et al. (2015). [Health insurance aspects of physiotherapeutic care of neurology disorders in outpatient care.] Ideggyogy Sz, 68: 399-408.
10. Boncz I, Sebestyen A, Dobrossy L, Otto S (2006). The role of immunochemical testing for colorectal cancer. Lancet Oncol, 7: 363-364.
11. Council recommendation of 2 December 2003 on cancer screening. Official J Eur Union, 2003/878/EC: 34–38.
12. Döbrőssy L, Kovács A, Budai A et al. (2011). [Con-troversial issues in colorectal screening in Hunga-ry]. Orv Hetil, 152: 1223-1232.
13. Kives Z, Juhász K, Csákvári T, et al (2018). Cancer screening policy in Hungary. Int J Cancer, 143:1003-1004.
14. Kives Zs, Kovács A, Budai A, et al (2019). [Quality and performance indicators of colorectal cancer screening pilot program in County Csongrád, Hungary] Magy Onk, 63: 125–132.
15. Segnan N, Patnick J and von Karsa L (2010). Euro-pean Guidelines for Quality Assurance in Colo-rectal Cancer Screening and Diagnosis - First Edi-tion, Luxembourg: Publications Office of the Eu-ropean Union.
16. Gordon NP and Green BB (2015). Factors associat-ed with use and non-use of the Fecal Immuno-chemical Test (FIT) kit for Colorectal Cancer Screening in Response to a 2012 outreach screen-ing program: a survey study. BMC Public Health, 15:546
17. Messina CR, Lane DS and Grimson R (2005). Colo-rectal cancer screening attitudes and practicies. Preferences for decision making. Am J Prev Med, 28:439-446.
18. Gede N, Reményi D and Kiss I (2018). Colorectal cancer and screening awareness and sources of information in the Hungarian population. BMC Fam Pract, 19:106.
19. Brotherstone H, Miles A, Robb KA et al (2006). The impact of illustrations on public understanding of the aim of cancer screening. Patient Educ Couns, 63: 328-335.
20. Tinmouth J, Baxter NN, Paszat LF et al (2014). Using physician-linked mailed invitations in an organised colorectal cancer screening programme: effective-ness and factors associated with response. BMJ Open, 4:e004494.
21. Senore C, Inadomi J, Segnan N et al (2015). Optimis-ing colorectal cancer screening acceptance: a re-view. Gut, 64:1158-1177.
22. Christou A and Thompson SC (2012). Colorectal cancer screening knowledge, attitudes and behav-ioural intention among Indigenous Western Aus-tralians. BMC Public Health, 12:528.
23. Durkin S, Broun K, Guerin N, et al (2019). Impact of a mass media campaign on participation in the Australian bowel cancer screening program. BMJ Open, Epub ahead of print 20 Oktober 2019.
24. Quyn AJ, Fraser CG, Stanners G et al (2018). Uptake trends in the Scottish Bowel Screening Pro-gramme and the influences of age, sex, and dep-rivation. J Med Screen, 25: 24–31.
25. Miranda-Diaz C, Betancourt E, Ruiz-Candelaria Y et al (2016). Barriers for compliance to breast, colo-rectal, and cervical screening cancer tests among hispanic patients. Int J Environ Res Public Health, 13: 21.
26. Klabunde CN, Vernon SW, Nadel MR et al (2005). Barriers to colorectal cancer screening: a compari-son of reports from primary care physicians and average-risk adults. Med Care, 43: 939-44.
27. Dama L, Korfage IJ, Kuipersac E J et al (2013). What influences the decision to participate in colorectal cancer screening with faecal occult blood testing and sigmoidoscopy? Eur J Cancer, 49:2321-2330.
28. Senore C, Hassan C, Regge D et al (2019). Cost-effectiveness of colorectal cancer screening pro-grammes using sigmoidoscopy and immuno-chemical faecal occult blood test. J Med Screen, 26: 76-83
29. Boncz I, Sebestyén A, Dózsa C, et al (2004). [Health economics analysis of colorectal screening]. Magy Onkol, 48: 111-5.
30. Csanádi M, de Kok IM, Antilla A et al (2019). Key indicators of organized cancer screening pro-grams: Results from a Delphi study. J Med Screen, 26: 120-126.
31. Özdemir R, Türkmen Cevik F, Kes D, Karacali M, Özgüner S (2020). Level and Factors Associated with Participation in Population-Based Cancer Screening in Safranbolu District of Karabuk, Tur-key. Iran J Public Health, 49(4): 663–672.
32. Tabrizi JS, Karamous M, Sadeghi-Bazargani H, et al (2019). Health Complex Model as the Start of a New Primary Healthcare Reform in Iran: Part B: The Intervention Protocol. Iran J Public Health, 48(1): 147–155.
33. Pakai A, Brantmüller É, Vajda R, Karácsony I, Balázs P (2017). Reasons for non-appearance on orga-nized cervical screening in Hungary. Practice and the-ory in systems of education, 11(2): 142-154.
| Files | ||
| Issue | Vol 51 No 12 (2022) | |
| Section | Original Article(s) | |
| DOI | https://doi.org/10.18502/ijph.v51i12.11464 | |
| Keywords | ||
| Colorectal screening Participation Satisfaction Compliance | ||
| Rights and permissions | |
|
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License. |
