Download PDF
Endoscopy 2017; 49(11): 1075-1086
DOI: 10.1055/s-0043-117400
Original article
© Georg Thieme Verlag KG Stuttgart · New York

Acceptability of two colorectal cancer screening tests: pain as a key determinant in sigmoidoscopy

Benedicte Kirkøen
1   Cancer Registry of Norway, Oslo, Norway
2   Institute of Clinical Medicine, University of Oslo, Oslo, Norway
,
Paula Berstad
1   Cancer Registry of Norway, Oslo, Norway
,
Edoardo Botteri
1   Cancer Registry of Norway, Oslo, Norway
3   National Advisory Unit for Women's Health, Women’s Clinic, Oslo University Hospital, Oslo, Norway
,
Eirin Dalén
4   Østfold Hospital Trust, Grålum, Norway
,
Jens Aksel Nilsen
5   Department of Internal Medicine, Vestre Viken Hospital Trust, Bærum Hospital, Drammen, Norway
,
Geir Hoff
1   Cancer Registry of Norway, Oslo, Norway
6   R&D Department, Telemark Hospital Trust, Skien, Norway
7   Department of Health Management and Health Economics, Institute of Health and Society, University of Oslo, Oslo, Norway
,
Thomas de Lange
1   Cancer Registry of Norway, Oslo, Norway
5   Department of Internal Medicine, Vestre Viken Hospital Trust, Bærum Hospital, Drammen, Norway
,
Tomm Bernklev
2   Institute of Clinical Medicine, University of Oslo, Oslo, Norway
8   R&D Department, Vestfold Hospital Trust, Tønsberg, Norway
› Author Affiliations
Further Information

Publication History

submitted 21 December 2016

accepted after revision 06 June 2017

Publication Date:
22 September 2017 (online)

Also available at
    Permissions and Reprints

See also:

Colorectal cancer screening: with pain, no gainEndoscopy 2017; 49(11): 1031-1032
DOI: 10.1055/s-0043-118216

Abstract

Background Participants’ experience with a screening test can influence adherence, and therefore the efficacy of screening programs. We compared screening with unsedated flexible sigmoidoscopy and fecal immunochemical testing (FIT) for participants’ satisfaction with the decision and for willingness to repeat colorectal cancer screening.

Methods In a prospective, randomized trial 3257 individuals (50 – 74 years) were invited to either flexible sigmoidoscopy or FIT (1:1), of whom 1650 took up the offer (52.6 %). In total, 1497 screening participants completed at least one questionnaire, either before screening, and/or at three time points in the following year, that measured willingness to repeat screening, willingness to recommend screening, and satisfaction with decision to attend. There were 769 and 728 responders in the flexible sigmoidoscopy and FIT group, respectively. Additionally, 581 flexible sigmoidoscopy participants also completed a pain questionnaire.

Results 1 year later, 10 % of the flexible sigmoidoscopy participants were not willing to repeat screening, compared to 5 % of FIT participants. A higher percentage of women compared to men would not repeat flexible sigmoidoscopy screening (adjusted odds ratio [OR] 2.52, 95 % confidence interval [95 %CI] 1.48 to 4.28). Notably, 22 % of women reported pain during flexible sigmoidoscopy compared to 5 % of men. When we added pain to the statistical model, pain was significantly associated with unwillingness to repeat flexible sigmoidoscopy (OR 3.15, 95 %CI 1.68 to 5.87), while gender was no longer associated (OR 1.53, 95 %CI 0.82 to 2.88).

Conclusion Acceptability for flexible sigmoidoscopy and for FIT was high among Norwegian screening participants, though FIT participants were more willing to repeat screening. Women were less willing to repeat screening with flexible sigmoidoscopy compared to men. This gender difference seemed partly due to pain, and therefore preventable.

This study is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT01538550.

 

  • References

  • 1 Torre LA, Bray F, Siegel RL. et al. Global cancer statistics, 2012. CA Cancer J Clin 2015; 65: 87-108
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 2 European Union. Council Recommendation of 2 December 2003 on cancer screening (2002/879/EC). Official Journal of the European Union 2003; L327 46: 34-38
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 3 Holme O, Bretthauer M, Fretheim A. et al. Flexible sigmoidoscopy versus faecal occult blood testing for colorectal cancer screening in asymptomatic individuals. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2013; 9: CD009259
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 4 Wilson JMG, Jungner G. Principles and practice of screening for disease. World Health Organization Public Health Paper. Geneva: World Health Organization; 1968
    Google Scholar
  • 5 Hol L, de Jonge V, van Leerdam ME. et al. Screening for colorectal cancer: comparison of perceived test burden of guaiac-based faecal occult blood test, faecal immunochemical test and flexible sigmoidoscopy. Eur J Cancer 2010; 46: 2059-2066
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 6 Bretthauer M, Hoff G. Comparative effectiveness research in cancer screening programmes. BMJ 2012; 344: e2864
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 7 De Lange T, Randel KR, Schult A. et al. Sigmoidoscopy and faecal occult blood test – a comparative screening trial. Tidsskr Nor Laegeforen 2017; 137: 727-730
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 8 Sewitch MJ, Gong S, Dube C. et al. A literature review of quality in lower gastrointestinal endoscopy from the patient perspective. Can J Gastroenterol 2011; 25: 681-685
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 9 Holmes-Rovner M, Kroll J, Schmitt N. et al. Patient satisfaction with health care decisions: the satisfaction with decision scale. Med Dec Making 1996; 16: 58-64
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 10 Entwistle VA, Watt IS, Gilhooly K. et al. Assessing patients' participation and quality of decision-making: insights from a study of routine practice in diverse settings. Patient Educ Couns 2004; 55: 105-113
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 11 Ware Jr JE , Gandek B, Keller SD. et al. Evaluating instruments used cross-nationally: methods from the IQOLA project. In: Spilker B. Quality of life and pharmacoeconomics in clinical trials, 2nd edn. Philadelphia: Lippincott-Raven; 1996: 681-692
    Google Scholar
  • 12 Streiner DL, Norman GR. Devising the items. In: Streiner DL, Norman GR. Health measurements scales: a practical guide to their development. New York: Oxford University Press; 1995: 15-27
    Google Scholar
  • 13 Hoff G, Bretthauer M, Huppertz-Hauss G. et al. The Norwegian Gastronet project: Continuous quality improvement of colonoscopy in 14 Norwegian centres. Scand J Gastroenterol 2006; 41: 481-487
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 14 Ferreira-Valente MA, Pais-Ribeiro JL, Jensen MP. Validity of four pain intensity rating scales. Pain 2011; 152: 2399-2404
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 15 Valori R, Rey JF, Atkin WS. et al. European guidelines for quality assurance in colorectal cancer screening and diagnosis. First Edition – Quality assurance in endoscopy in colorectal cancer screening and diagnosis. Endoscopy 2012; 44 (Suppl. 03) SE88-SE105
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 16 Schoen RE, Weissfeld JL, Bowen NJ. et al. Patient satisfaction with screening flexible sigmoidoscopy. Arch Intern Med 2000; 160: 1790-1796
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 17 Weissfeld JL, Ling BS, Schoen RE. et al. Adherence to repeat screening flexible sigmoidoscopy in the Prostate, Lung, Colorectal, and Ovarian (PLCO) Cancer Screening Trial. Cancer 2002; 94: 2569-2576
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 18 Larsen IK, Grotmol T, Bretthauer M. et al. Continuous evaluation of patient satisfaction in endoscopy centres. Scand J Gastroenterol 2002; 37: 850-855
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 19 Taylor T, Williamson S, Wardle J. et al. Acceptability of flexible sigmoidoscopy screening in older adults in the United Kingdom. J Med Screen 2000; 7: 38-45
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 20 Robb KA, Lo SH, Power E. et al. Patient-reported outcomes following flexible sigmoidoscopy screening for colorectal cancer in a demonstration screening programme in the UK. J Med Screen 2013; 19: 171-176
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 21 Drossaert CH, Boer H, Seydel ER. Monitoring women’s experiences during three rounds of breast cancer screening: results from a longitudinal study. J Med Screen 2002; 9: 168-175
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 22 Cockburn J, Cawson J, Hill D. et al. An analysis of reported discomfort caused by mammographic X-ray amongst attenders at an Australian pilot breast screening program. Australas Radiol 1992; 36: 115-119
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 23 Loftus R, Nugent Z, Graff LA. et al. Patient satisfaction with the endoscopy experience and willingness to return in a central Canadian health region. Can J Gastroenterol 2013; 27: 259-266
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 24 Cockburn J, Thomas RJ, McLaughlin SJ. et al. Acceptance of screening for colorectal cancer by flexible sigmoidoscopy. J Med Screen 1995; 2: 79-83
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 25 Atkin WS, Hart A, Edwards R. et al. Uptake, yield of neoplasia, and adverse effects of flexible sigmoidoscopy screening. Gut 1998; 42: 560-565
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 26 Unruh AM. Gender variations in clinical pain experience. Pain 1996; 65: 123-167
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 27 Fillingim RB, Maixner W. Gender differences in the responses to noxious stimuli. Pain Forum 1995; 4: 209-221
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 28 Riley 3rd JL , Robinson ME, Wise EA. et al. Sex differences in the perception of noxious experimental stimuli: a meta-analysis. Pain 1998; 74: 181-187
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 29 Hull T, Church JM. Colonoscopy – how difficult, how painful?. Surg Endosc 1994; 8: 784-787
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 30 Clancy C, Burke JP, Chang KH. et al. The effect of hysterectomy on colonoscopy completion: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Dis Colon Rectum 2014; 57: 1317-1323
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 31 McCarthy BD, Moskowitz MA. Screening flexible sigmoidoscopy. J Gen Int Med 1993; 8: 120-125
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 32 Wise EA, Price DD, Myers CD. et al. Gender role expectations of pain: relationship to experimental pain perception . Pain 2002; 96: 335-342
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 33 Whelehan P, Evans A, Wells M. et al. The effect of mammography pain on repeat participation in breast cancer screening: a systematic review. Breast 2013; 22: 389-394
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 34 Garborg KK, Loberg M, Matre J. et al. Reduced pain during screening colonoscopy with an ultrathin colonoscope: a randomized controlled trial. Endoscopy 2012; 44: 740-746
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 35 Pontone S, Tonda M, Brighi M. et al. Does anxiety or waiting time influence patients’ tolerance of upper endoscopy?. Saudi J Gastroenterol 2015; 21: 111-115
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 36 Loken K, Steine S, Laerum E. Mammography: influence of departmental practice and women's characteristics on patient satisfaction: comparison of six departments in Norway. Qual Health Care 1998; 7: 136-141
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 37 Van Goethem M, Mortelmans D, Bruyninckx E. et al. Influence of the radiographer on the pain felt during mammography. Eur Radiol 2003; 13: 2384-2389
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 38 van Dam L, Korfage IJ, Kuipers EJ. et al. What influences the decision to participate in colorectal cancer screening with faecal occult blood testing and sigmoidoscopy?. Eur J Cancer 2013; 49: 2321-2330
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 39 Hofvind SS-H, Wang H, Thoresen S. The Norwegian Breast Cancer Screening Program: re-attendance related to the women’s experiences, intentions and previous screening result. Cancer Causes Control 2003; 14: 391-398
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 40 Taylor KL, Shelby R, Gelmann E. et al. Quality of life and trial adherence among participants in the prostate, lung, colorectal, and ovarian cancer screening trial. J Natl Cancer Inst 2004; 96: 1083-1094
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 41 Pornet C, Dejardin O, Morlais F. et al. Socioeconomic determinants for compliance to colorectal cancer screening. A multilevel analysis. J Epidemiol Community Health 2010; 64: 318-324
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 42 van Jaarsveld CH, Miles A, Edwards R. et al. Marriage and cancer prevention: does marital status and inviting both spouses together influence colorectal cancer screening participation?. J Med Screening 2006; 13: 172-176
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 43 Kodl MM, Powell AA, Noorbaloochi S. et al. Mental health, frequency of healthcare visits, and colorectal cancer screening. Med Care 2010; 48: 934-939
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 44 Thiis-Evensen E, Wilhelmsen I, Hoff GS. et al. The psychologic effect of attending a screening program for colorectal polyps. Scandinavian journal of gastroenterology 1999; 34: 103-109
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar