IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0125782.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Regret on Choice of Colorectal Cancer Screening Modality Was Associated with Poorer Screening Compliance: A 4-Year Prospective Cohort Study

Author

Listed:
  • Martin C S Wong
  • Jessica Y L Ching
  • Victor C W Chan
  • Renee Bruggemann
  • Thomas Y T Lam
  • Arthur K C Luk
  • Justin C Y Wu
  • Francis K L Chan
  • Joseph J Y Sung

Abstract

Purpose: Very few studies examined the issue of regret on choosing colorectal cancer (CRC) screening tests. We evaluated the determinants of regret and tested the hypothesis that regret over screening choices was associated with poorer screening compliance. Methods: A bowel cancer screening centre invited all Hong Kong citizens aged 50-70 years who were asymptomatic of CRC to participate in free-of-charge screening programmes. Upon attendance they attended health seminars on CRC and its screening, and were offered an option to choose yearly faecal immunochemical test (FIT) for up to four years vs. one direct colonoscopy. They were not allowed to switch the screening option after decision. A self-administered, four-item validated survey was used to assess whether they regretted over their choice (> 2 = regretful from a scale of 0 [no regret]-5 [extreme regret]). A binary logistic regression model evaluated if initial regret over their choice was associated with poorer programme compliance. Results: From 4,341 screening participants who have chosen FIT or colonoscopy, 120 (2.8%) regretted over their decision and 1,029 (23.7%) were non-compliant with the screening programme. Younger subjects and people who felt pressure when making their decision were associated with regret. People who regretted their decision were 2.189 (95% C.I. 1.361-3.521, p = 0.001) times more likely to be non-compliant with the programme. Conclusions: This study is the first to show that regret over the initial CRC screening choice was associated with later non-compliance. Screening participants who expressed regret over their choice should receive additional reminders to improve their programmatic compliance.

Suggested Citation

  • Martin C S Wong & Jessica Y L Ching & Victor C W Chan & Renee Bruggemann & Thomas Y T Lam & Arthur K C Luk & Justin C Y Wu & Francis K L Chan & Joseph J Y Sung, 2015. "Regret on Choice of Colorectal Cancer Screening Modality Was Associated with Poorer Screening Compliance: A 4-Year Prospective Cohort Study," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 10(4), pages 1-13, April.
  • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0125782
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0125782
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0125782
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0125782&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0125782?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
    ---><---

    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:pone00:0125782. 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: 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.