IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0070209.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Perceived Obstacles of Colorectal Cancer Screening and Their Associated Factors among 10,078 Chinese Participants

Author

Listed:
  • Martin C S Wong
  • Jessica Y L Ching
  • Hoyee H Hirai
  • Thomas Y T Lam
  • Sian M Griffiths
  • Francis K L Chan
  • Joseph J Y Sung

Abstract

Purpose: to evaluate the proportion of self-referred screening participants having various psychological barriers and the factors associated with these barriers. Methods: A territory-wide bowel cancer screening centre sent an invitation via the media to all Hong Kong residents aged 50–70 years who were asymptomatic of CRC to join a free screening programme. Upon attendance they were requested to complete self-administered surveys on their perceived barriers of screening. Binary logistic regression analyses were used to evaluate the factors associated with these barriers. Results: From 10,078 consecutive screening participants (mean age 57.5 years; female 56.4%) completed the surveys between May 2008 to September 2012. There were high proportions who agreed or strongly agreed with the following barriers: financial difficulty (86.0%), limited service accessibility (58.2%), screening-induced bodily discomfort (55.2%), physical harm (44.4%), embarrassment (40.1%), apprehension (38.8%) and time constraints (13.9%). From regression models, older participants (aged ≥56) were less likely to have these barriers (Adjusted odds ratio [AOR] ranged from 0.738 to 0.952) but they encountered more difficulties to access to screening services (AOR ranged from 1.141 to 1.371). Female subjects were more likely to encounter most of these barriers (AOR ranged from 1.188 to 2.179). Participants who were uncertain of the necessity of CRC screening for people aged ≥50 were more likely to report these barriers (AOR ranged from 1.151 to 1.671). Conclusion: The proportions of perceptual barriers of CRC screening were high among these participants. Those with these associated factors should receive more thorough explanation of the screening test procedures.

Suggested Citation

  • Martin C S Wong & Jessica Y L Ching & Hoyee H Hirai & Thomas Y T Lam & Sian M Griffiths & Francis K L Chan & Joseph J Y Sung, 2013. "Perceived Obstacles of Colorectal Cancer Screening and Their Associated Factors among 10,078 Chinese Participants," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 8(7), pages 1-10, July.
  • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0070209
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0070209
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0070209
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0070209&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0070209?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. McCaffery, Kirsten & Borril, Jo & Williamson, Sara & Taylor, Tamara & Sutton, Stephen & Atkin, Wendy & Wardle, Jane, 2001. "Declining the offer of flexible sigmoidoscopy screening for bowel cancer: : a qualitative investigation of the decision-making process," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 53(5), pages 679-691, September.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. 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.
    2. Schmeising-Barnes, Ninian & Waller, Jo & Marlow, Laura A.V., 2024. "Attitudes to multi-cancer early detection (MCED) blood tests for population-based screening: A qualitative study in Great Britain," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 347(C).
    3. Beyer, Kirsten M.M. & Comstock, Sara & Seagren, Renea & Rushton, Gerard, 2011. "Explaining place-based colorectal cancer health disparities: Evidence from a rural context," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 72(3), pages 373-382, February.
    4. Le Bonniec, Alice & Meade, Oonagh & Fredrix, Milou & Morrissey, Eimear & O'Carroll, Ronan E. & Murphy, Patrick J. & Murphy, Andrew W. & Mc Sharry, Jenny, 2023. "Exploring non-participation in colorectal cancer screening: A systematic review of qualitative studies," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 329(C).

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:plo:pone00:0070209. 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.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with 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: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    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.