英国自我报告及客观记录的结直肠癌筛查参与情况
Self-Reported And Objectively Recorded Colorectal Cancer Screening Participation In England.
作者信息
Lo Siu Hing, Waller Jo, Vrinten Charlotte, Wardle Jane, von Wagner Christian
机构信息
Cancer Research UK Health Behaviour Research Centre, Department of Epidemiology and Public Health, University College London, Gower Street, London WC1E 6BT.
Cancer Research UK Health Behaviour Research Centre, Department of Epidemiology and Public Health, University College London, Gower Street, London WC1E 6BT
出版信息
J Med Screen. 2016 Mar;23(1):17-23. doi: 10.1177/0969141315599015. Epub 2015 Sep 25.
OBJECTIVE
To compare self-reported with objectively recorded participation in Faecal Occult Blood testing (FOBt) colorectal cancer (CRC) screening in a national programme.
METHODS
Survey respondents living in England who were eligible for screening were asked in face-to-face interviews if they had ever been invited to do a CRC screening test, how many times they had been invited, and how many times they had participated. National Health Service (NHS) Bowel Cancer Screening Programme (BCSP) records were consulted for respondents who had consented to a record check. The outcome measures were 'ever uptake' (responded to ≥1 invitation), 'repeat uptake' (responded to ≥2 invitations), and 'consistent uptake' (responded to all invitations).
RESULTS
In the verified group, self-reported ever uptake was highly consistent with recorded ever uptake (87.0% vs. 87.8%). Among those who indicated that they had been invited more than once, self-reported repeat uptake was 89.8% compared with 84.8% recorded repeat uptake. Among those with more than one recorded invitation, self-reported repeat uptake was 72.7% compared with 77.2% recorded repeat uptake, and self-reported consistent uptake was 81.6% compared with 65.6% recorded consistent uptake.
CONCLUSION
Our results suggest that people can accurately report whether they have ever taken part in CRC screening. The vast majority of those whose records were verified could also accurately report whether they had taken part in screening at least twice. They were somewhat less accurate in reporting whether they had responded to all screening invitations.
目的
在一项全国性计划中，比较自我报告的粪便潜血检测（FOBt）结直肠癌（CRC）筛查参与情况与客观记录的参与情况。
方法
对居住在英格兰且符合筛查条件的调查对象进行面对面访谈，询问他们是否曾被邀请参加CRC筛查测试、被邀请的次数以及参与的次数。对于同意进行记录核查的受访者，查阅了国民健康服务（NHS）肠癌筛查计划（BCSP）的记录。结局指标为“曾接受筛查”（对≥1次邀请做出回应）、“重复接受筛查”（对≥2次邀请做出回应）和“持续接受筛查”（对所有邀请都做出回应）。
结果
在经核实的组中，自我报告的曾接受筛查情况与记录的曾接受筛查情况高度一致（87.0%对87.8%）。在表示被邀请不止一次的人群中，自我报告的重复接受筛查率为89.8%，而记录的重复接受筛查率为84.8%。在记录有不止一次邀请的人群中，自我报告的重复接受筛查率为72.7%，而记录的重复接受筛查率为77.2%，自我报告的持续接受筛查率为81.6%，而记录的持续接受筛查率为65.6%。
结论
我们的结果表明，人们能够准确报告他们是否曾参与CRC筛查。绝大多数记录经核实的人也能够准确报告他们是否至少参与过两次筛查。在报告是否对所有筛查邀请都做出回应方面，他们的准确性略低。
Zotero 插件