Search

Background: Screening aims to improve health by early detection of disease or risk factors for disease. It may also influence health behaviour, either by intention or as a side effect. The aim of this review was to summarize evidence of the effects of screening, either risk factor screening or screening for early detection of disease, on health behaviour: smoking habits, diet, exercise, alcohol consumption and adherence to guidelines for healthy living., Methods: This review included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing the effects of screening on health behaviour in a screened group and an unscreened group. Systematic searches of Medline, CCTR and Embase between 1970 and May 2008 were conducted., Results: Seven trials were included, five on screening for risk factors (four cardiovascular; one ALDH2) and two on screening for early detection of disease (colorectal cancer and hearing loss). In trials of screening for risk factors, health behaviour was on average significantly more favourable in screened individuals. The number of trials on screening for early detection of disease was too small to allow for conclusions on effects on health behaviour., Conclusion: The number of trials studying the effect of population-based screening programmes on health behaviour is limited. The trials on screening for risk factors suggest a positive effect on health behaviour, while the number of trials on screening for early detection of disease was too low to draw conclusions on subsequent health behaviour. Future RCTs of screening interventions should systematically include health behaviour effects in their study design.

We investigated the participation rates in CRC screening with a FOBT among various ethnic groups in the Netherlands. Individuals (n = 10 054) were invited by mail and grouped by country of birth. Overall participation rate was 49%. Participation among ethnic minority groups was significantly lower than among ethnic Dutch [adjusted OR for participation: Middle- or Central-East 0.25 (0.18-0.34), African 0.48 (0.34-0.67), Surinamese and Antillean 0.51 (0.43-0.61), South- or South-East Asian 0.56 (0.46-0.69) and 'other Western' 0.78 (0.63-0.96)]. Further studies are needed to explore whether ethnic minority groups are not reached or that low uptake is determined by other causes.

Background: Compared with screening programs for breast and cervical cancer, reported participation rates for colorectal cancer (CRC) screening are low. The effectiveness of a screening program is strongly influenced by the participation rate. The aim of this study was to investigate the main reasons not to participate in a population-based, invitational CRC screening program., Methods: In the Dutch study program for CRC screening, a random selection of 20 623 persons were invited received a faecal occult blood test. Of the non-participants, 500 were randomly selected and contacted for a standardized telephone interview from November 2006 to May 2007 to document the main reason not to participate., Results: In total, 312 (62%) non-participants could be included for analysis. Most frequently, reported reasons for non-participation were time-related or priority-related (36%), including 'did not notice test in mailbox' (13%) and 'forgot' (8%). Other reasons were health-related issues, such as 'severe illness' (9%), or emotional reasons, such as 'family circumstances' (7%)., Conclusions: The majority of the reported reasons not to participate reflect low priority for screening. Adding extra instructions and information, and addressing specific concerns through additional interventions should be considered to improve individual decision-making about participation in future CRC population-based screening programs.

The objective of this study was to evaluate patient perception of endoanal MRI compared with defecography and anorectal functional testing in the workup of patients with faecal incontinence. Consenting consecutive patients underwent a standard testing protocol consisting of endoanal MRI, defecography and anorectal function combination. Patient experience was evaluated with a self-administered questionnaire, addressing anxiety, embarrassment, pain and discomfort, each measured on a 1 (none) to 5 (extreme) point-scale. Patients were also asked to rank the three tests from least to most inconvenient. Statistical analysis was performed with parametric tests. Data from 211 patients (23 men; mean age 59 years (SD+/-12)) were available. MRI had the lowest average score for embarrassment and discomfort (1.6) and defecography the highest (1.9 and 2.0, respectively) (p<0.0001, tested with general linear model for related samples). The average pain score was lowest for MRI (1.4) and highest for the anorectal function combination (1.7) (p<0.0001). Level of anxiety was highest for MRI (1.6 versus 1.4; p = 0.03). MRI was scored as least inconvenient by 69% of patients. Endoanal MRI was scored as least inconvenient. However, the differences in patient burden between the three diagnostic tests were small and absolute values were low for all tests. Patient perception will not be a key feature in determining an optimal diagnostic strategy in faecal incontinence.