IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/socmed/v41y1995i3p365-374.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Determinants of persistent compliance with screening for colorectal cancer

Author

Listed:
  • Neilson, Aileen R.
  • Whynes, David K.

Abstract

Mass population screening for colorectal cancer is currently being evaluated by means of randomized controlled trials. These trials point to the likelihood that, if implemented, the level of both initial and sustained compliance will prevent the full potential of screening being realised. The paper opens by reviewing the evidence on determinants of compliance, both initial and longer term, although little empirical evidence on adherence to repeated screening is currently available. The paper then presents the results of a survey of persistent compliers and non-compliers within the English screening trial, in order to identify those characteristics most closely associated with persistent compliance behaviour. Persistent compliers are found, inter alia, to be of higher socio-economic classes than persistent non-compliers, to have more personal and family experiences of illness and to visit their dentists more regularly. The results suggest that generalized attempts at compliance enhancement would be ineffectual against the prevailing background characteristics of the non-compliant population, and that the more overt targeting of efforts in this respect is to be preferred.

Suggested Citation

  • Neilson, Aileen R. & Whynes, David K., 1995. "Determinants of persistent compliance with screening for colorectal cancer," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 41(3), pages 365-374, August.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:socmed:v:41:y:1995:i:3:p:365-374
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0277-9536(94)00329-R
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Whynes, David K. & Frew, Emma & Wolstenholme, Jane L., 2003. "A comparison of two methods for eliciting contingent valuations of colorectal cancer screening," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 22(4), pages 555-574, July.
    2. Chapple, Alison & Ziebland, Sue & Hewitson, Paul & McPherson, Ann, 2008. "What affects the uptake of screening for bowel cancer using a faecal occult blood test (FOBt): A qualitative study," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 66(12), pages 2425-2435, June.
    3. David K. Whynes & Jane L. Wolstenholme & Emma Frew, 2004. "Evidence of range bias in contingent valuation payment scales," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 13(2), pages 183-190, February.
    4. David K. Whynes & Aileen R. Neilson & Andrew R. Walker & Jack D. Hardcastle, 1998. "Faecal occult blood screening for colorectal cancer: is it cost‐effective?," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 7(1), pages 21-29, February.
    5. Emma J. Frew & David K. Whynes & Jane L. Wolstenholme, 2003. "Eliciting Willingness to Pay: Comparing Closed-Ended with Open-Ended and Payment Scale Formats," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 23(2), pages 150-159, March.
    6. Vogt, Verena & Siegel, Martin & Sundmacher, Leonie, 2014. "Examining regional variation in the use of cancer screening in Germany," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 110(C), pages 74-80.
    7. Frew, Emma J. & Wolstenholme, Jane L. & Whynes, David K., 2004. "Comparing willingness-to-pay: bidding game format versus open-ended and payment scale formats," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 68(3), pages 289-298, June.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:socmed:v:41:y:1995:i:3:p:365-374. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/wps/find/journaldescription.cws_home/315/description#description .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.