ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND AND AIM: To investigate participation in a second round of colorectal cancer screening using a fecal occult blood test (FOBT) in an Australian rural community, and to assess the demographic characteristics and individual perspectives associated with repeat screening. METHODS: Potential participants from round 1 (50-74 years of age) were sent an intervention package and asked to return a completed FOBT (n = 3406). Doctors of participants testing positive referred to colonoscopy as appropriate. Following screening, 119 participants completed qualitative telephone interviews. Multivariable logistic regression models evaluated the association between round-2 participation and other variables. RESULTS: Round-2 participation was 34.7%; the strongest predictor was participation in round 1. Repeat participants were more likely to be female; inconsistent screeners were more likely to be younger (aged 50-59 years). The proportion of positive FOBT was 12.7%, that of colonoscopy compliance was 98.6%, and the positive predictive value for cancer or adenoma of advanced pathology was 23.9%. Reasons for participation included testing as a precautionary measure or having family history/friends with colorectal cancer; reasons for non-participation included apathy or doctors' advice against screening. CONCLUSION: Participation was relatively low and consistent across rounds. Unless suitable strategies are identified to overcome behavioral trends and/or to screen out ineligible participants, little change in overall participation rates can be expected across rounds.
Subject(s)
Colorectal Neoplasms/diagnosis , Mass Screening/methods , Occult Blood , Rural Population , Aged , Colorectal Neoplasms/epidemiology , Female , Humans , Incidence , Male , Middle Aged , Queensland/epidemiology , Retrospective Studies , Sensitivity and SpecificityABSTRACT
OBJECTIVES: To quantify gynecological cancer survivors' referral to, awareness of, utilization of and satisfaction with community support services, as well as the factors associated with service use. METHODS: In 2004, 802 gynecological cancer survivors, 3 months-5 years post-diagnosis, completed a postal questionnaire (56% response rate). Descriptive statistics summarized outcome prevalences. Logistic regression models identified correlates of service utilization. RESULTS: Substantial proportions of women were aware of the main cancer support organization, Cancer Council Queensland (72%), and of information booklets (74%), helplines (66%), support groups (56%) and internet information (50%). Less than half were aware of other services. The most commonly used resources and services were information booklets (37%), the internet (23%), and helplines (20%). More broadly, 43% utilized information/internet support, 30% utilized psychosocial services and 27% utilized functional/practical services. Approximately one-fifth (19%) used more than one support types. Having a health-care provider referral, being diagnosed with lymphedema or living in northern Queensland were associated with higher odds of service use in all three of the support types. While most (86%) of those referred used a service, only a few women received referrals. Among users, satisfaction with services was high. CONCLUSIONS: While gynecological cancer survivors accessed a variety of support, there is a need to ensure women are aware of services. Given the low prevalence of referrals and that referral was a key influence on service use, clinician education may be necessary to improve service referral. Organizations should also consider strategies to keep services high on clinicians' radars.