The primary colorectal cancer screening test in England is a guaiac faecal occult blood test (gFOBt). The NHS Bowel Cancer Screening Programme (BCSP) interprets tests on six samples on up to three test kits to determine a definitive positive or negative result. However, the test algorithm fails to achieve a definitive result for a significant number of participants because they do not comply with the programme requirements. This study identifies factors associated with failed compliance and modifications to the screening algorithm that will improve the clinical effectiveness of the screening programme.
The BCSP Southern Hub data for screening episodes started in 2006-2012 were analysed for participants aged 60-69 years. The variables included age, sex, level of deprivation, gFOBt results and clinical outcome.
The data set included 1 409 335 screening episodes; 95.08% of participants had a definitively normal result on kit 1 (no positive spots). Among participants asked to complete a second or third gFOBt, 5.10% and 4.65%, respectively, failed to return a valid kit. Among participants referred for follow up, 13.80% did not comply. Older age was associated with compliance at repeat testing, but non-compliance at follow up. Increasing levels of deprivation were associated with non-compliance at repeat testing and follow up. Modelling a reduction in the threshold for immediate referral led to a small increase in completion of the screening pathway.
Reducing the number of positive spots required on the first gFOBt kit for referral for follow-up and targeted measures to improve compliance with follow-up may improve completion of the screening pathway.British Journal of Cancer advance online publication, 14 January 2016; doi:10.1038/bjc.2015.469 www.bjcancer.com.
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science
2
6%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
1
3%
Mathematics
1
3%
Nursing and Health Professions
1
3%
Other
4
13%
Unknown
10
31%
Attention Score in Context
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 13. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 20 January 2016.
All research outputs
#2,437,230
of 23,314,015 outputs
Outputs from British Journal of Cancer
#1,376
of 10,564 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#44,095
of 398,191 outputs
Outputs of similar age from British Journal of Cancer
#26
of 104 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,314,015 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 89th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 10,564 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 9.7. This one has done well, scoring higher than 86% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 398,191 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 88% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 104 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 75% of its contemporaries.
