Calanzani Natalia, Cavers Debbie, Vojt Gabriele, Orbell Sheina, Steele Robert J C, Brownlee Linda, Smith Steve, Patnick Julietta, Weller David, Campbell Christine
The Usher Institute of Population Health Sciences and Informatics, Centre for Population Health Sciences, Medical School, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, UK.
Department of Psychology, Glasgow Caledonian University, Glasgow, UK.
BMJ Open. 2017 Oct 11;7(10):e016307. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2017-016307.
We aimed to test whether a brief, opportunistic intervention in general practice was a feasible and acceptable way to engage with bowel screening non-responders.
This was a feasibility study testing an intervention which comprised a brief conversation during routine consultation, provision of a patient leaflet and instructions to request a replacement faecal occult blood test kit. A mixed-methods approach to evaluation was adopted. Data were collected from proformas completed after each intervention, from the Bowel Screening Centre database and from questionnaires. Semi-structured interviews were carried out. We used descriptive statistics, content and framework analysis to determine intervention feasibility and acceptability.
Bowel screening non-responders (as defined by the Scottish Bowel Screening Centre) and primary care professionals working in five general practices in Lothian, Scotland.
Several predefined feasibility parameters were assessed, including numbers of patients engaging in conversation, requesting a replacement kit and returning it, and willingness of primary care professionals to deliver the intervention.
The intervention was offered to 258 patients in five general practices: 220 (87.0%) engaged with the intervention, 60 (23.3%) requested a new kit, 22 (8.5%) kits were completed and returned. Interviews and questionnaires suggest that the intervention was feasible, acceptable and consistent with an existing health prevention agenda. Reported challenges referred to work-related pressures, time constraints and practice priorities.
This intervention was acceptable and resulted in a modest increase in non-responders participating in bowel screening, although outlined challenges may affect sustained implementation. The strategy is also aligned with the increasing role of primary care in promoting bowel screening.
我们旨在测试在全科医疗中进行的简短、机会性干预是否是与肠道筛查无应答者接触的可行且可接受的方式。
这是一项可行性研究，测试一种干预措施，该措施包括在常规咨询期间进行简短交谈、提供患者宣传册以及指导患者索要替代粪便潜血检测试剂盒。采用了混合方法进行评估。数据收集自每次干预后填写的表格、肠道筛查中心数据库以及问卷。进行了半结构化访谈。我们使用描述性统计、内容和框架分析来确定干预的可行性和可接受性。
肠道筛查无应答者（由苏格兰肠道筛查中心定义）以及在苏格兰洛锡安郡五家全科诊所工作的初级保健专业人员。
评估了几个预先定义的可行性参数，包括参与交谈的患者数量、索要替代试剂盒并归还的患者数量，以及初级保健专业人员实施干预的意愿。
在五家全科诊所中，有258名患者接受了该干预：220名（占87.0%）参与了干预；60名（占23.3%）索要了新试剂盒；22名（占8.5%）完成并归还了试剂盒。访谈和问卷表明该干预是可行的、可接受的，并且与现有的健康预防议程一致。报告的挑战涉及工作压力、时间限制和诊所优先事项。
该干预是可接受的，并且使参与肠道筛查的无应答者数量略有增加，尽管所概述的挑战可能会影响其持续实施。该策略也与初级保健在促进肠道筛查方面日益重要的作用相一致。
