A2 Refereed review article in a scientific journal
Participants' satisfaction with colorectal cancer screening programs: A systematic review
Authors: Selva Anna, Mosconi Giansanto, Cacitti Stefano, Odone Anna, Pylkkanen Liisa, Solà Ivan, Torà Núria, Russo Sara, Cadum Ennio, Deandrea Silvia
Publisher: Elsevier
Publication year: 2023
Journal: Preventive Medicine
Journal name in source: Preventive medicine
Journal acronym: Prev Med
Article number: 107706
Volume: 175
ISSN: 0091-7435
eISSN: 1096-0260
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ypmed.2023.107706
Web address : https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ypmed.2023.107706
Self-archived copy’s web address: https://research.utu.fi/converis/portal/detail/Publication/181281540
Introduction
Since satisfaction with cancer screening experience can increase adherence to programs and contribute to reduce morbidity and mortality, its assessment is crucial for programs´ effectiveness. Our aim was to conduct a systematic review about satisfaction of participants with organized colorectal cancer screening.
Methods
We searched relevant scientific databases (MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO, and CINAHL) from inception to May 2022. We selected cross-sectional studies and clinical trials reporting a quantitative survey-based measure of satisfaction towards CRC screening.
Results
A total of 15 studies were included, being published from 1992 to 2019 for an overall number of 21 surveys. Of those, 16 (76%) investigated satisfaction with screening tests (fecal occult blood test, fecal immunochemical test, sigmoidoscopy, colonoscopy, computed tomographic colonography), 4 (19%) with colonoscopy as assessment test after suspicious findings, and 2 (10%) with both the screening and assessment phase. None of the included surveys used a validated questionnaire. Most surveys reported a high level of satisfaction for both screening and further assessment phases. Temporary pain, discomfort, embarrassment, and anxiety while waiting for results were the commonest negative aspects perceived, with some variability across studies and considered procedures.
Conclusions
Satisfaction with the information and communication about screening was generally good, but some authors reported participants' sub-optimal understanding of informative material. Satisfaction with CRC screening is generally high, but its evaluation is performed using non-validated instruments, which limits the interpretation of results and prevents comparability of the current body of evidence.
Downloadable publication This is an electronic reprint of the original article. |