The Dutch public are positive about the colorectal cancer-screening programme, but is this a well-informed opinion?

Linda N Douma, Ellen Uiters, Danielle R M Timmermans, Linda N Douma, Ellen Uiters, Danielle R M Timmermans

Abstract

Background: Population-based colorectal cancer (CRC) screening is widely recommended, and members of the eligible screening population seem to be positive about it. However, it is not well known how people outside the eligible screening population view CRC screening, and whether they are supportive of the government providing this. Public opinion may affect people's personal views and their screening decision. The aim of our study was to examine the opinion of the Dutch general public regarding the national CRC screening programme.

Method: An online survey was carried out in a Dutch population sample of adults aged 18 and older, assessing level of support, personal attitude, collective attitude, perceived social norm, awareness, and knowledge regarding the CRC screening programme.

Results: The response rate was 56% (n = 1679/3000). Generally, the Dutch public are positive about and supportive of the CRC screening programme. We found the biggest proportion of support (86%) when people were asked directly. A smaller proportion (48%) was supportive when people had to choose between other options concerning how the government could possibly deal with CRC. People report knowing more about the benefits of CRC screening than about its possible harms and risks. Many people found it difficult to answer the knowledge questions that asked about numerical information concerning CRC screening correctly.

Conclusion: People were less supportive of the CRC screening programme when having to choose between other options concerning dealing with CRC, and their support may not be based on a full comprehension of what CRC screening entails. Further research is needed to establish what knowledge people need in order to form a well-founded opinion.

Keywords: Colorectal cancer; Informed opinion; Knowledge; Public; Screening; Support; The Netherlands.

References

    1. World Health Organization. Globocan 2012: Estimated cancer incidence, mortality and prevalence worldwide in 2012. []. Accessed 2 Nov 2015.
    1. Integraal Kankercentrum Nederland. Nederlandse Kankerregistratie [Dutch Cancer Registration]. []. Accessed 16 July 2015.
    1. Hardcastle JD, Chamberlain JO, Robinson MH. Randomised controlled trial of faecal-occult-blood screening for colorectal cancer. Lancet. 1996;348(9040):1472–1477. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(96)03386-7.
    1. Kronborg O, Fenger C, Olsen J, Jorgensen OD, Sondergaard O. Randomised study of screening for colorectal cancer with faecaloccult-blood test. Lancet. 1996;348(9040):1467–1471. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(96)03430-7.
    1. Mandel JS, Bond JH, Church TR. Reducing mortality from colorectal cancer by screening for fecal occult blood. Minnesota Colon Cancer Control Study. N Engl J Med. 1993;328(19):1365–1371. doi: 10.1056/NEJM199305133281901.
    1. Winawer SJ, Zauber AG, Ho MN, et al. Prevention of colorectal cancer by colonoscopic polypectomy. The National Polyp Study Workgroup. N Engl J Med. 1993;329(27):1977–1981. doi: 10.1056/NEJM199312303292701.
    1. Commission of the European Communities . Council Recommendation on Cancer Screening. Brussels: Commission of the European Communities; 2003.
    1. Sung JJ, Lau JY, Young GP. Asia Pacific consensus recommendations for colorectal cancer screening. Gut. 2008;57(8):1166–1176. doi: 10.1136/gut.2007.146316.
    1. Bibbins-Domingo K, Grossman DC, Curry SJ, Davidson KW, Epling JW, Jr, Garcia FA, Gillman MW, Harper DM, Kemper AR, Krist AH, et al. Screening for Colorectal Cancer: US Preventive Services Task Force Recommendation Statement. JAMA. 2016;315(23):2564–2575. doi: 10.1001/jama.2016.5989.
    1. Gezondheidsraad (Health Council of the Netherlands) Bevolkingsonderzoek naar darmkanker. Den Haag: Gezondheidsraad; 2009.
    1. Gray JA, Patnick J, Blanks RG. Maximising benefit and minimising harm of screening. BMJ. 2008;336(7624):480–483. doi: 10.1136/bmj.39470.643218.94.
    1. Whitlock EP, Lin J, Liles E, Beil T, Fu R, O’Connor E, Thompson RN, Cardenas T. Screening for Colorectal Cancer: An Updated Systematic Review. Rockville: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (US); 2008. U.S. Preventive Services Task Force Evidence Syntheses, formerly Systematic Evidence Reviews.
    1. Saquib N, Saquib J, Ioannidis JP. Does screening for disease save lives in asymptomatic adults? Systematic review of meta-analyses and randomized trials. Int J Epidemiol. 2015;44(1):264–277. doi: 10.1093/ije/dyu140.
    1. Fitzpatrick-Lewis D, Ali MU, Warren R, Kenny M, Sherifali D, Raina P: Screening for Colorectal Cancer: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Clin Colorectal Cancer 2016. doi: 10.1016/j.clcc.2016.03.003
    1. Irwig L, McCaffery K, Salkeld G, Bossuyt P. Informed choice for screening: implications for evaluation. BMJ. 2006;332(7550):1148–1150. doi: 10.1136/bmj.332.7550.1148.
    1. Jepson RG, Hewison J, Thompson A, Weller D. Patient perspectives on information and choice in cancer screening: a qualitative study in the UK. Soc Sci Med. 2007;65(5):890–899. doi: 10.1016/j.socscimed.2007.04.009.
    1. Johansson M, Brodersen J. Informed choice in screening needs more than information. Lancet. 2015;385(9978):1597–1599. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(15)60258-6.
    1. Gotzsche P. Commentary: Screening: a seductive paradigm that has generally failed us. Int J Epidemiol. 2015;44(1):278–280. doi: 10.1093/ije/dyu267.
    1. Rimer BK, Briss PA, Zeller PK, Chan EC, Woolf SH. Informed decision making: what is its role in cancer screening? Cancer. 2004;101(5 Suppl):1214–1228. doi: 10.1002/cncr.20512.
    1. Marteau TM, Dormandy E, Michie S. A mesaure of informed choice. Health Expect. 2001;4(2):99–108. doi: 10.1046/j.1369-6513.2001.00140.x.
    1. van Leerdam ME, Toes E, Spaander VMCM, van Vuuren AJ, Dekker E, Kuipers EJ, et al. Eerste resultaten bevolkingsonderzoek darmkanker. Bilthoven: Rijksinstituut voor Volksgezondheid en Milieu (RIVM); 2014.
    1. LETB . Maatschappelijke Gezondheidszorg. Nijmegen: Erasmus MC, Rotterdam & Afdeling Health Evidence, Radboud universitair medisch centrum; 2014. Landelijke evaluatie van bevolkingsonderzoek naar borstkanker in Nederland 1990-2011/2012. Het dertiende evaluatierapport.
    1. LEBA . Landelijke Evaluatie Bevolkingsonderzoek naar Baarmoederhalskanker 2011. Rotterdam: Erasmus MC afdeling maatschappelijke gezondheidszorg; 2012.
    1. Cullati S, Charvet-Berard AI, Perneger TV. Cancer screening in a middle-aged general population: factors associated with practices and attitudes. BMC Public Health. 2009;9:118. doi: 10.1186/1471-2458-9-118.
    1. Hall NJ, Rubin GP, Dobson C, Weller D, Wardle J, Ritchie M, Rees CJ: Attitudes and beliefs of non-participants in a population-based screening programme for colorectal cancer. Health Expect. 2013;18:1645–1657.
    1. McCaffery K, Wardle J, Waller J. Knowledge, attitudes, and behavioral intentions in relation to the early detection of colorectal cancer in the United Kingdom. Prev Med. 2003;36(5):525–535. doi: 10.1016/S0091-7435(03)00016-1.
    1. Murphy CC, Vernon SW, Haddock NM, Anderson ML, Chubak J, Green BB. Longitudinal predictors of colorectal cancer screening among participants in a randomized controlled trial. Prev Med. 2014;66:123–130. doi: 10.1016/j.ypmed.2014.06.013.
    1. Smith SK, Simpson JM, Trevena LJ, McCaffery KJ. Factors Associated with Informed Decisions and Participation in Bowel Cancer Screening among Adults with Lower Education and Literacy. Med Decis Mak. 2014;34(6):756–772. doi: 10.1177/0272989X13518976.
    1. Schwartz LM, Woloshin S, Fowler FJ, Welch HG. Enthusiasm for cancer screening in the United States. J Am Med Assoc. 2004;291(1):71–78. doi: 10.1001/jama.291.1.71.
    1. Waller J, Osborne K, Wardle J. Enthusiasm for cancer screening in Great Britain; a general population study. Br J Cancer. 2015;112:562–566. doi: 10.1038/bjc.2014.643.
    1. van den Bruel A, Jones C, Yang Y, Oke J, Hewitson P. People’s willingness to accept overdetection in cancer screening: population survey. BMJ. 2015;350:h980. doi: 10.1136/bmj.h980.
    1. Park HS, Smith SW. Distinctiveness and Influence of Subjective Norms, Personal Descriptive and Injunctive Norms, and Societal Descriptive and Injunctive Norms on Behavioral Intent: A Case of Two Behaviors Critical to Organ Donation. Hum Commun Res. 2007;33:194–218. doi: 10.1111/j.1468-2958.2007.00296_3.x.
    1. Mutz DC. Impersonal Influence: How Perceptions of Mass Collectives Affect Political Attitudes. New York: Cambridge University Press; 1998.
    1. Fiske ST, Taylor SE. Social cognition. 2. New York: McGraw-Hill; 1991.
    1. Noelle-Neumann E. The spiral of silence: a theory of public opinion. J Commun. 1974;24:43–51. doi: 10.1111/j.1460-2466.1974.tb00367.x.
    1. Soroka S, Maioni A, Martin P. What moves public opinion on health care? Individual experiences, system performance, and media framing. J Health Polit Policy Law. 2013;38(5):893–920. doi: 10.1215/03616878-2334656.
    1. Bleackley A, Hennessy M, Fishbein M. Public Opinion on Sex Education in US Schools. Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med. 2006;160:1151–1156. doi: 10.1001/archpedi.160.11.1151.
    1. Corbett M. American public opinion: Trends, processes, and patterns. New York: Longman; 1991.
    1. Hoffman LH, Glynn CJ, Huge ME, Sietman RB, Thomson T. The Role of Communication in Public Opinion Processes: Understanding the Impacts of Intrapersonal, Media, and Social Filters. Int J Public Opin Res. 2007;19(3):287–312. doi: 10.1093/ijpor/edm014.
    1. Nisbet M, Markowitz EM. Understanding Public Opinion in Debates over Biomedical Research: Looking beyond Political Partisanship to Focus on Beliefs about Science and Society. PLoS One. 2014;9(2):e88473. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0088473.
    1. Ho SS, Brossard D, Scheufele DA. Effects of Value Predispositions, Mass Media Use, and Knowledge on Public Attitudes Toward Embryonic Stem Cell Research. Int J Public Opin Res. 2008;20(2):171–192. doi: 10.1093/ijpor/edn017.
    1. Beydoun HA, Beydoun MA. Predictors of colorectal cancer screening behaviors among average-risk older adults in the United States. Cancer Causes Control. 2008;19(4):339–359. doi: 10.1007/s10552-007-9100-y.
    1. Power E, Miles A, Von Wagner C, Robb K, Wardle J. Uptake of colorectal cancer screening: system, provider and individual factors and strategies to improve participation. Future Oncol. 2009;5(9):1371–1388. doi: 10.2217/fon.09.134.
    1. Wardle J, McKaffery K, Nadel M, Atkin W. Socioeconomic differences in cancer screening participation: comparing cognitive and psychosocial explanations. Soc Sci Med. 2004;59:249–261. doi: 10.1016/j.socscimed.2003.10.030.
    1. Smith-McLallen A, Fishbein M. Predictors of intentions to perform six cancer-related behaviours: Roles for injunctive and descriptive norms. Psychol Health Med. 2008;13(4):389–401. doi: 10.1080/13548500701842933.
    1. Ajzen I. The theory of planned behavior. Organ Behav Hum Decis Process. 1991;50(2):179–211. doi: 10.1016/0749-5978(91)90020-T.
    1. von Wagner C, Baio G, Raine R, Snowball J, Morris S, Atkin W, Obichere A, Handley G, Logan RF, Rainbow S, et al. Inequalities in participation in an organized national colorectal cancer screening programme: results from the first 2.6 million invitations in England. Int J Epidemiol. 2011;40(3):712–718. doi: 10.1093/ije/dyr008.
    1. Denters MJ, Deutekom M, Essink-Bot ML, Bossuyt PM, Fockens P, Dekker E. Assessing knowledge and attitudes towards screening among users of faecal immunochemical test. Health Expect. 2013;18(5):839–849. doi: 10.1111/hex.12056.
    1. Fisher RJ. Social desirability bias and the validity of indirect questioning. J Consum Res. 1993;20:303–315. doi: 10.1086/209351.
    1. Nederhof AJ. Methods of coping with social desirability bias: a review. Eur J Soc Psychol. 1985;15:263–280. doi: 10.1002/ejsp.2420150303.
    1. van Dam L, Korfage IJ, Kuipers EJ, Hol L, van Roon AH, Reijerink JC, van Ballegooijen M, van Leerdam ME. What influences the decision to participate in colorectal cancer screening with faecal occult blood testing and sigmoidoscopy? Eur J Cancer. 2013;49(10):2321–2330. doi: 10.1016/j.ejca.2013.03.007.
    1. Siegrist M, Cvetokovich G. Perception of hazards: the role of social trust and knowledge. Risk Anal. 2000;20(5):713–719. doi: 10.1111/0272-4332.205064.
    1. Brewer NT, Chapman GB, Gibbons FX, Gerrard M, McCaul KD, Weinstein ND. Meta-analysis of the relationship between risk perception and health behavior: the example of vaccination. Health Psychol. 2007;26(2):136–145. doi: 10.1037/0278-6133.26.2.136.
    1. CBS [Dutch Statistics]. MOA Golden Standard. []. Accessed 9 Apr 2015.
    1. Oliver A. Further evidence of preference reversals: choice, valuation and ranking over distributions of life expectancy. J Health Econ. 2006;25(5):803–820. doi: 10.1016/j.jhealeco.2005.08.004.
    1. Slothuus U, Larsen ML, Junker P. The contingent ranking method--a feasible and valid method when eliciting preferences for health care? Soc Sci Med. 2002;54(10):1601–1609. doi: 10.1016/S0277-9536(01)00139-3.
    1. Gotzsche PC, Nielsen M. Screening for breast cancer with mammography. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2011;1:CD001877.
    1. Gigerenzer G. Breast cancer screening pamphlets mislead women. BMJ. 2014;348:g2636. doi: 10.1136/bmj.g2636.
    1. RIVM. Bevolkingsonderzoek darmkanker [CRC screening programme]. []. Accessed 16 Jan 2016.
    1. Goffman E. Frame Analysis: An Essay on the Organization of Experience. New York: Harper & Row; 1974.
    1. Chong D, Druckman JN. Framing Theory. Annu Rev Polit Sci. 2007;10(1):103–126. doi: 10.1146/annurev.polisci.10.072805.103054.
    1. de Haan MC, de Wijkerslooth TR, Stoop E, Bossuyt P, Fockens P, Thomeer M, Kuipers EJ, Essink-Bot ML, van Leerdam ME, Dekker E, et al. Informed decision-making in colorectal cancer screening using colonoscopy or CT-colonography. Patient Educ Couns. 2013;91(3):318–325. doi: 10.1016/j.pec.2013.01.004.
    1. Oldach BR, Katz ML. Health literacy and cancer screening: a systematic review. Patient Educ Couns. 2014;94(2):149–157. doi: 10.1016/j.pec.2013.10.001.
    1. van der Heide I, Uiters E, Jantine Schuit A, Rademakers J, Fransen M. Health literacy and informed decision making regarding colorectal cancer screening: a systematic review. Eur J Pub Health. 2015;25(4):575–582. doi: 10.1093/eurpub/ckv005.
    1. Crowson CS, Therneau TM, Matteson EL, Gabriel SE. Primer: Demystifying risk--understanding and communicating medical risks. Nat Clin Pract Rheumatol. 2007;3(3):181–187. doi: 10.1038/ncprheum0397.
    1. Dillard AJ, Couper MP, Zikmund-Fisher BJ. Perceived risk of cancer and patient reports of participation in decisions about screening: the DECISIONS study. Med Decis Mak. 2010;30(5 Suppl):96S–105S. doi: 10.1177/0272989X10377660.
    1. Gigerenzer G, Hertwig R, van den Broek E, Fasolo B, Katsikopoulos KV. “A 30% chance of rain tomorrow”: how does the public understand probabilistic weather forecasts? Risk Anal. 2005;25(3):623–629. doi: 10.1111/j.1539-6924.2005.00608.x.
    1. Zipkin DA, Umscheid CA, Keating NL, Allen E, Aung K, Beyth R, Kaatz S, Mann DM, Sussman JB, Korenstein D, et al. Evidence-based risk communication: a systematic review. Ann Intern Med. 2014;161(4):270–280. doi: 10.7326/M14-0295.

Source: PubMed

Sponsorer og samarbejdspartnere

Medicinske tilstande

Narkotikainterventioner

3
Abonner