4.7 Article

A comparison of the acceptance of immunochemical faecal occult blood test and colonoscopy in colorectal cancer screening: a prospective study among Chinese

Journal

ALIMENTARY PHARMACOLOGY & THERAPEUTICS
Volume 32, Issue 1, Pages 74-82

Publisher

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2036.2010.04312.x

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. Hong Kong Jockey Club Charities Trust [7103242]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Background Preferences to choose immunochemical faecal occult blood test (FIT) and colonoscopy as colorectal cancer (CRC) screening modalities among asymptomatic Chinese subjects remain unknown. Aim To evaluate the preference of choosing colonoscopy vs. FIT among CRC screening participants. Methods From a community-based CRC screening programme for asymptomatic Hong Kong Chinese aged 50-70 years, participants attended standardized educational sessions and chose the options of annual FIT for 5 years or direct colonoscopy once. Factors associated with choosing colonoscopy were evaluated by multivariate regression analysis. Results Among 3430 participants [mean age 56.8 years (s.d. 5.0); female 55.1%, male 44.9%], 51.3% chose colonoscopy and 48.7% chose FIT. Older participants (65-70 years) were less likely to choose colonoscopy [adjusted odds ratio (aOR) 0.731, P = 0.041]. Subjects who chose colonoscopy were those disagreed screening would lead to discomfort (aOR 1.356, P < 0.001), had relatives or friends who had CRC (first degree relatives aOR 1.679, P < 0.001; second degree relatives aOR 1.304, P = 0.019; friends or others aOR 1.252, P = 0.026) and those who self-perceived their health as poor (aOR 1.529, P = 0.025). Conclusions Faecal occult blood test and direct colonoscopy were equally preferable to Chinese. Colonoscopy was preferred among the younger subjects, those with positive family history of CRC and self-perceived poor health status. Aliment Pharmacol Ther 2010; 32: 74-82

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available