Participants' satisfaction with colorectal cancer screening programs: A systematic review

Introduction: Since satisfaction with cancer screening experience can increase adherence to programs and contribute to reduce morbidity and mortality, its assessment is crucial for programs ' effectiveness. Our aim was to conduct a systematic review about satisfaction of participants with organized colorectal cancer screening.Methods: We searched relevant scientific databases (MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO, and CINAHL) from inception to May 2022. We selected cross-sectional studies and clinical trials reporting a quantitative survey-based measure of satisfaction towards CRC screening.Results: A total of 15 studies were included, being published from 1992 to 2019 for an overall number of 21 surveys. Of those, 16 (76%) investigated satisfaction with screening tests (fecal occult blood test, fecal immunochemical test, sigmoidoscopy, colonoscopy, computed tomographic colonography), 4 (19%) with colonoscopy as assessment test after suspicious findings, and 2 (10%) with both the screening and assessment phase. None of the included surveys used a validated questionnaire. Most surveys reported a high level of satisfaction for both screening and further assessment phases. Temporary pain, discomfort, embarrassment, and anxiety while waiting for results were the commonest negative aspects perceived, with some variability across studies and considered procedures. Conclusions: Satisfaction with the information and communication about screening was generally good, but some authors reported participants' sub-optimal understanding of informative material. Satisfaction with CRC screening is generally high, but its evaluation is performed using non-validated instruments, which limits the interpretation of results and prevents comparability of the current body of evidence.

Automated summary

The aim of this study was to conduct a systematic review on the satisfaction of participants with organized colorectal cancer screening. The results showed that most studies reported high levels of satisfaction with both the screening and further assessment phases. However, some authors reported that participants had sub-optimal understanding of informative material. It is important to note that the questionnaires used to assess satisfaction were not validated, which limits the interpretation of results and the comparability of the current evidence.