scholarly journals Evaluation of a service intervention to improve awareness and uptake of bowel cancer screening in ethnically-diverse areas

2014 ◽  
Vol 111 (7) ◽  
pp. 1440-1447 ◽  
Author(s):  
J Shankleman ◽  
N J Massat ◽  
L Khagram ◽  
S Ariyanayagam ◽  
A Garner ◽  
...  
2021 ◽  
Vol 21 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Robert S. Kerrison ◽  
Andrew Prentice ◽  
Sarah Marshall ◽  
Sameer Choglay ◽  
Michael Levitan ◽  
...  

Abstract Background To date, research exploring the public’s awareness of bowel cancer has taken place with predominantly white populations. To enhance our understanding of how bowel cancer awareness varies between ethnic groups, and inform the development of targeted interventions, we conducted a questionnaire study across three ethnically diverse regions in Greater London, England. Methods Data were collected using an adapted version of the bowel cancer awareness measure. Eligible adults were individuals, aged 60+ years, who were eligible for screening. Participants were recruited and surveyed, verbally, by staff working at 40 community pharmacies in Northwest London, the Harrow Somali association, and St. Mark’s Bowel Cancer Screening Centre. Associations between risk factor, symptom and screening awareness scores and ethnicity were assessed using multivariate regression. Results 1013 adults, aged 60+ years, completed the questionnaire; half were of a Black, Asian or Minority ethnic group background (n = 507; 50.0%). Participants recognised a mean average of 4.27 of 9 symptoms and 3.99 of 10 risk factors. Symptom awareness was significantly lower among all ethnic minority groups (all p’s < 0.05), while risk factor awareness was lower for Afro-Caribbean and Somali adults, specifically (both p’s < 0.05). One in three adults (n = 722; 29.7%) did not know there is a Bowel Cancer Screening Programme. Bowel screening awareness was particularly low among Afro-Caribbean and Somali adults (both p’s < 0.05). Conclusion Awareness of bowel cancer symptoms, risk factors and screening varies by ethnicity. Interventions should be targeted towards specific groups for whom awareness of screening and risk factors is low.


BMJ Open ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 10 (10) ◽  
pp. e037011
Author(s):  
Christine Campbell ◽  
Anne Douglas ◽  
Linda Williams ◽  
Geneviève Cezard ◽  
David H Brewster ◽  
...  

ObjectiveCancer screening should be equitably accessed by all populations. Uptake of colorectal cancer screening was examined using the Scottish Health and Ethnicity Linkage Study that links the Scottish Census 2001 to health data by individual-level self-reported ethnicity and religion.SettingData on 1.7 million individuals in two rounds of the Scottish Bowel Cancer Screening Programme (2007–2013) were linked to the 2001 Census using the Scottish Community Health Index number.Main outcome measureUptake of colorectal cancer screening, reported as age-adjusted risk ratios (RRs) by ethnic group and religion were calculated for men and women with 95% CI.ResultsIn the first, incidence screening round, compared with white Scottish men, Other White British (RR 109.6, 95% CI 108.8 to 110.3) and Chinese (107.2, 95% CI 102.8 to 111.8) men had higher uptake. In contrast, men of all South Asian groups had lower uptake (Indian RR 80.5, 95% CI 76.1 to 85.1; Pakistani RR 65.9, 95% CI 62.7 to 69.3; Bangladeshi RR 76.6, 95% CI 63.9 to 91.9; Other South Asian RR 88.6, 95% CI 81.8 to 96.1). Comparable patterns were seen among women in all ethnic groups, for example, Pakistani (RR 55.5, 95% CI 52.5 to 58.8). Variation in uptake was also observed by religion, with lower rates among Hindu (RR (95%CI): 78.4 (71.8 to 85.6)), Muslim (69.5 (66.7 to 72.3)) and Sikh (73.4 (67.1 to 80.3)) men compared with the reference population (Church of Scotland), with similar variation among women: lower rates were also seen among those who reported being Jewish, Roman Catholic or with no religion.ConclusionsThere are important variations in uptake of bowel cancer screening by ethnic group and religion in Scotland, for both sexes, that require further research and targeted interventions.


2017 ◽  
Vol 35 (3) ◽  
pp. 132-139
Author(s):  
Kate E. Carney ◽  
Peter E. Coyne

2016 ◽  
Vol 114 (3) ◽  
pp. 327-333 ◽  
Author(s):  
Benjamin Kearns ◽  
Sophie Whyte ◽  
Helen E Seaman ◽  
Julia Snowball ◽  
Stephen P Halloran ◽  
...  

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document