GPs’ perspectives on colorectal cancer screening and their potential influence on FIT-positive patients: an exploratory qualitative study from a Dutch context
Background: In the Dutch colorectal cancer (CRC) screening programme, individuals receive a faecal immunochemical test (FIT) to do at home. After a positive FIT result, a follow-up colonoscopy is recommended to identify CRC or advanced adenomas (AA). GPs may influence their patients’ decisions on adherence to follow-up by colonoscopy. Aim: To explore GPs’ perspectives on the CRC screening programme and their potential influence on FIT-positive patients to follow up with the recommended colonoscopy. Design & setting: Semi-structured interviews among GPs in Amsterdam, the Netherlands. Method... Mehr ...
Verfasser: | |
---|---|
Dokumenttyp: | Artikel |
Erscheinungsdatum: | 2019 |
Reihe/Periodikum: | BJGP Open, Vol 3, Iss 1 (2019) |
Verlag/Hrsg.: |
Royal College of General Practitioners
|
Schlagwörter: | Primary Health Care / Family Practice / Colorectal Neoplasms / Early Detection of Cancer / Colorectal Cancer Screening / Qualitative Research / Medicine (General) / R5-920 |
Sprache: | Englisch |
Permalink: | https://search.fid-benelux.de/Record/base-28985082 |
Datenquelle: | BASE; Originalkatalog |
Powered By: | BASE |
Link(s) : | https://doi.org/10.3399/bjgpopen18X101631 |
Background: In the Dutch colorectal cancer (CRC) screening programme, individuals receive a faecal immunochemical test (FIT) to do at home. After a positive FIT result, a follow-up colonoscopy is recommended to identify CRC or advanced adenomas (AA). GPs may influence their patients’ decisions on adherence to follow-up by colonoscopy. Aim: To explore GPs’ perspectives on the CRC screening programme and their potential influence on FIT-positive patients to follow up with the recommended colonoscopy. Design & setting: Semi-structured interviews among GPs in Amsterdam, the Netherlands. Method: GPs were approached using purposive sampling. Analysis was performed on 11 interviews using open coding and constant comparison. Results: All interviewed GPs would recommend FIT-positive patients without obvious contraindications to adhere to a follow-up colonoscopy. If patients were likely to be distressed by a positive FIT result, most GPs described using reassurance strategies emphasising a low cancer probability. Most GPs stressed the probability of false-positive FIT results. Some described taking a positive screening result in CRC screening less seriously than one in breast cancer screening. Most GPs underestimated CRC and AA probabilities after a positive FIT result. When told the actual probabilities, some stated that this knowledge might change the way they would inform patients. Conclusion: These results imply that some of the interviewed GPs have too low a perception of the risk associated with a positive FIT result, which might influence their patients’ decision-making. Simply informing GPs about the actual rates of CRC and AA found in the screening programme might improve this risk perception.