Could stool collection devices help increase uptake to bowel cancer screening programmes?

Morling, Joanne R.; Barke, A.N.; Chapman, C.J.; Logan, R.F.

Abstract

Objective: We aimed to understand the usage and acceptability of a faecal collection device (FCD) amongst participants of the NHS Bowel Cancer Screening Programme in order to influence future uptake.
Setting: Men and women completing faecal occult blood test (FOBt) retests as part of the routine Bowel Cancer Screening Programme in Eastern England.
Methods: A FCD and questionnaire was sent to all potential retest participants during a 1 month period collecting information on prior stool collection methods and ease of use and usefulness of the enclosed FCD.
Results: Of 1087 invitations to participate, 679 (62.5%) participants returned their questionnaire. Of these 429 (63.2%) trialled the FCD at least once. 163 (38.4%) found the device made collecting their sample easier than previously, with 189 (44.6%) finding it made collection more difficult and 72 (17.0%) feeling it made no difference. Similar numbers reported finding that the FCD made collecting the sample more pleasant (130, 31.5%), less pleasant (103, 25.0%) and no different (179, 43.4%) compared to previous collection without a FCD.
Conclusion: Although a small proportion of participants found the FCD helpful a considerable majority did not or did not use it at all. Offering FCDs is unlikely to produce a substantial increase in bowel cancer screening uptake.

Citation

Morling, J. R., Barke, A., Chapman, C., & Logan, R. (2018). Could stool collection devices help increase uptake to bowel cancer screening programmes?. Journal of Medical Screening, 25(4), 174-177. https://doi.org/10.1177/0969141317753463

• Journal Article Type: Article
• Acceptance Date: Dec 21, 2017
• Online Publication Date: Feb 5, 2018
• Publication Date: Dec 1, 2018
• Deposit Date: Jan 4, 2018
• Publicly Available Date: Feb 5, 2018
• Journal: Journal of Medical Screening
• Print ISSN: 0969-1413
• Electronic ISSN: 1475-5793
• Publisher: SAGE Publications
• Peer Reviewed: Peer Reviewed
• Volume: 25
• Issue: 4
• Pages: 174-177
• DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/0969141317753463
• Public URL: https://nottingham-repository.worktribe.com/output/910146
• Publisher URL: http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/0969141317753463