Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: http://hdl.handle.net/1893/22877
Full metadata record
DC FieldValueLanguage
dc.contributor.authorChambers, Julieen_UK
dc.contributor.authorCallander, Alanaen_UK
dc.contributor.authorGrangeret, Rebeccaen_UK
dc.contributor.authorO'Carroll, Ronanen_UK
dc.date.accessioned2016-03-04T23:39:29Z-
dc.date.available2016-03-04T23:39:29Z-
dc.date.issued2016-02-13en_UK
dc.identifier.other96en_UK
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/1893/22877-
dc.description.abstractBackground: Colorectal cancer screening is key to early detection and thus to early treatment, but uptake is often sub-optimal, particularly amongst lower income groups. It is proposed that the imminent introduction of the single-sample Faecal Immunochemical Test (FIT) in Scotland may lead to increased uptake as compared to the current Faecal Occult Blood Test (FOBT), but underlying reasons are yet to be determined. The aim was to evaluate attitudes and intentions towards completing the FIT compared to the current FOBT for colorectal cancer screening. Methods: A convenience sample of 200 adults (mean age 56.5, range 40-89; 59 % female) living in Scotland rated both the FOBT and the FIT with regard to ease of completion, perceived disgust and intention to complete and return (all measured on Likert-type 1-7 scale). Participants were randomised to be presented (via a face-to-face contact) with either the FIT or FOBT first. Results: Participants reported higher intention to complete and return the FIT versus the FOBT (mean difference 0.62, 95 % CI (0.44, 0.79)). Overall, 85.0 % (n = 170) of participants agreed or strongly agreed that they would intend to complete and return the FIT compared to 65.5 % (n = 131) for the FOBT (χ2 = 20.4, p < .001). The FIT was also perceived to be easier to complete (mean difference 0.85, 95 % CI (0.70, 1.01) and much less disgusting (mean difference 1.11, 95 % CI (0.94, 1.27)). Lower perceived disgust, higher socio-economic status and previous participation in any cancer screening were significant predictors of intention to complete the FOBT, whilst only higher perceived ease of completion predicted intention to complete the FIT. Conclusions: People reported higher intentions to complete and return a FIT than a FOBT test for colorectal cancer screening, largely due to a perception that it is easier and less disgusting to complete. The findings suggest that the introduction of the FIT as standard in the UK could result in a notable increase in screening uptake.en_UK
dc.language.isoenen_UK
dc.publisherBioMed Centralen_UK
dc.relationChambers J, Callander A, Grangeret R & O'Carroll R (2016) Attitudes towards the Faecal Occult Blood Test (FOBT) versus the Faecal Immunochemical Test (FIT) for colorectal cancer screening: perceived ease of completion and disgust. BMC Cancer, 16, Art. No.: 96. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12885-016-2133-4en_UK
dc.rights© Chambers et al. 2016 This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://​creativecommons.​org/​licenses/​by/​4.​0/​), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://​creativecommons.​org/​publicdomain/​zero/​1.​0/​) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.en_UK
dc.rights.urihttp://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/en_UK
dc.subjectFaecal occult blood test (FOBT)en_UK
dc.subjectFaecal immunochemical test (FIT)en_UK
dc.subjectColorectal canceren_UK
dc.subjectScreeningen_UK
dc.subjectDisgusten_UK
dc.titleAttitudes towards the Faecal Occult Blood Test (FOBT) versus the Faecal Immunochemical Test (FIT) for colorectal cancer screening: perceived ease of completion and disgusten_UK
dc.typeJournal Articleen_UK
dc.identifier.doi10.1186/s12885-016-2133-4en_UK
dc.identifier.pmid26872450en_UK
dc.citation.jtitleBMC Canceren_UK
dc.citation.issn1471-2407en_UK
dc.citation.volume16en_UK
dc.citation.publicationstatusPublisheden_UK
dc.citation.peerreviewedRefereeden_UK
dc.type.statusVoR - Version of Recorden_UK
dc.author.emailj.a.chambers@stir.ac.uken_UK
dc.citation.date13/02/2016en_UK
dc.contributor.affiliationPsychologyen_UK
dc.contributor.affiliationUniversity of Stirlingen_UK
dc.contributor.affiliationUniversity of Stirlingen_UK
dc.contributor.affiliationPsychologyen_UK
dc.identifier.isiWOS:000370014000001en_UK
dc.identifier.scopusid2-s2.0-84957619023en_UK
dc.identifier.wtid578788en_UK
dc.contributor.orcid0000-0002-5130-291Xen_UK
dc.date.accepted2016-02-07en_UK
dcterms.dateAccepted2016-02-07en_UK
dc.date.filedepositdate2016-02-24en_UK
rioxxterms.apcpaiden_UK
rioxxterms.typeJournal Article/Reviewen_UK
rioxxterms.versionVoRen_UK
local.rioxx.authorChambers, Julie|en_UK
local.rioxx.authorCallander, Alana|en_UK
local.rioxx.authorGrangeret, Rebecca|en_UK
local.rioxx.authorO'Carroll, Ronan|0000-0002-5130-291Xen_UK
local.rioxx.projectInternal Project|University of Stirling|https://isni.org/isni/0000000122484331en_UK
local.rioxx.freetoreaddate2016-02-24en_UK
local.rioxx.licencehttp://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/|2016-02-24|en_UK
local.rioxx.filenameChambers et al 2016 Fit versus FOBT online first.pdfen_UK
local.rioxx.filecount1en_UK
Appears in Collections:Psychology Journal Articles

Files in This Item:
File Description SizeFormat 
Chambers et al 2016 Fit versus FOBT online first.pdfFulltext - Published Version266.47 kBAdobe PDFView/Open


This item is protected by original copyright



A file in this item is licensed under a Creative Commons License Creative Commons

Items in the Repository are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.

The metadata of the records in the Repository are available under the CC0 public domain dedication: No Rights Reserved https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/

If you believe that any material held in STORRE infringes copyright, please contact library@stir.ac.uk providing details and we will remove the Work from public display in STORRE and investigate your claim.