Influencing Cancer Screening Participation Rates—Providing a Combined Cancer Screening Program (a ‘One Stop’ Shop) Could Be a Potential Answer

IntroductionParticipation in established cancer screening programs remains variable. Therefore, a renewed focus on how to increase screening uptake, including addressing structural barriers such as time, travel, and cost is needed. One approach could be the provision of combined cancer screening, wh...

Full description

Bibliographic Details
Main Authors: Amanda Bobridge, Kay Price, Tiffany K. Gill, Anne W. Taylor
Format: Article
Language:English
Published: Frontiers Media S.A. 2017-12-01
Series:Frontiers in Oncology
Subjects:
Online Access:http://journal.frontiersin.org/article/10.3389/fonc.2017.00308/full
id doaj-1e87884d54de48358bc29b2b7c15f287
record_format Article
spelling doaj-1e87884d54de48358bc29b2b7c15f2872020-11-24T21:30:52ZengFrontiers Media S.A.Frontiers in Oncology2234-943X2017-12-01710.3389/fonc.2017.00308308707Influencing Cancer Screening Participation Rates—Providing a Combined Cancer Screening Program (a ‘One Stop’ Shop) Could Be a Potential AnswerAmanda Bobridge0Kay Price1Tiffany K. Gill2Anne W. Taylor3University of South Australia, Adelaide, SA, AustraliaUniversity of South Australia, Adelaide, SA, AustraliaThe University of Adelaide, Adelaide, SA, AustraliaThe University of Adelaide, Adelaide, SA, AustraliaIntroductionParticipation in established cancer screening programs remains variable. Therefore, a renewed focus on how to increase screening uptake, including addressing structural barriers such as time, travel, and cost is needed. One approach could be the provision of combined cancer screening, where multiple screening tests are provided at the same time and location (essentially a ‘One Stop’ screening shop). This cohort study explored both cancer screening behavior and the acceptability of a combined screening approach.MethodsParticipants of the North Western Adelaide Health Study (NWAHS), South Australia were invited to participate in a questionnaire about cancer screening behaviors and the acceptability of a proposed ‘One Stop’ cancer screening shop. Data were collected from 10th August 2015 to 18th January 2016, weighted for selection probability, age, and sex and analyzed using descriptive and multivariable logistic regression analysis.Results1,562 people, 52% female (mean age 54.1 years ± 15.2) participated. Reported screening participation was low, the highest being for Pap Smear (34.4%). Common reasons for screening participation were preventing sickness (56.1%, CI 53.2–59.0%), maintaining health (51%, CI 48–53.9%), and free program provision (30.9%, CI 28.2–33.6%). Females were less likely to state that screening is not beneficial [OR 0.37 (CI 0.21–0.66), p < 0.001] and to cite sickness prevention [OR 2.10 (CI 1.46–3.00), p < 0.001] and free program [OR 1.75 (CI 1.22–2.51), p < 0.003] as reasons for screening participation. Of those who did not participate, 34.6% (CI 30.3–39.1%) stated that there was nothing that discouraged them from participation, with 55- to 64-year olds [OR 0.24 (CI 0.07–0.74), p < 0.04] being less likely to cite this reason. 21% (CI 17.2–24.8%) thought they did not need screening, while a smaller proportion stated not having time (6.9%, CI 4.9–9.7%) and the costs associated with screening (5.2%, CI 3.5–7.7%). The majority of participants (85.3%, CI 81.9–88.2%) supported multiple screening being offered at the same time and location.ConclusionIdentified screening behaviors in this study are similar to those reported in the literature. The high support for the concept of combined cancer screening demonstrates that this type of approach is acceptable to potential end users and warrants further investigation.http://journal.frontiersin.org/article/10.3389/fonc.2017.00308/fullcancer screeningcombined screeningscreening behaviorscombined cancer screeningscreening participation
collection DOAJ
language English
format Article
sources DOAJ
author Amanda Bobridge
Kay Price
Tiffany K. Gill
Anne W. Taylor
spellingShingle Amanda Bobridge
Kay Price
Tiffany K. Gill
Anne W. Taylor
Influencing Cancer Screening Participation Rates—Providing a Combined Cancer Screening Program (a ‘One Stop’ Shop) Could Be a Potential Answer
Frontiers in Oncology
cancer screening
combined screening
screening behaviors
combined cancer screening
screening participation
author_facet Amanda Bobridge
Kay Price
Tiffany K. Gill
Anne W. Taylor
author_sort Amanda Bobridge
title Influencing Cancer Screening Participation Rates—Providing a Combined Cancer Screening Program (a ‘One Stop’ Shop) Could Be a Potential Answer
title_short Influencing Cancer Screening Participation Rates—Providing a Combined Cancer Screening Program (a ‘One Stop’ Shop) Could Be a Potential Answer
title_full Influencing Cancer Screening Participation Rates—Providing a Combined Cancer Screening Program (a ‘One Stop’ Shop) Could Be a Potential Answer
title_fullStr Influencing Cancer Screening Participation Rates—Providing a Combined Cancer Screening Program (a ‘One Stop’ Shop) Could Be a Potential Answer
title_full_unstemmed Influencing Cancer Screening Participation Rates—Providing a Combined Cancer Screening Program (a ‘One Stop’ Shop) Could Be a Potential Answer
title_sort influencing cancer screening participation rates—providing a combined cancer screening program (a ‘one stop’ shop) could be a potential answer
publisher Frontiers Media S.A.
series Frontiers in Oncology
issn 2234-943X
publishDate 2017-12-01
description IntroductionParticipation in established cancer screening programs remains variable. Therefore, a renewed focus on how to increase screening uptake, including addressing structural barriers such as time, travel, and cost is needed. One approach could be the provision of combined cancer screening, where multiple screening tests are provided at the same time and location (essentially a ‘One Stop’ screening shop). This cohort study explored both cancer screening behavior and the acceptability of a combined screening approach.MethodsParticipants of the North Western Adelaide Health Study (NWAHS), South Australia were invited to participate in a questionnaire about cancer screening behaviors and the acceptability of a proposed ‘One Stop’ cancer screening shop. Data were collected from 10th August 2015 to 18th January 2016, weighted for selection probability, age, and sex and analyzed using descriptive and multivariable logistic regression analysis.Results1,562 people, 52% female (mean age 54.1 years ± 15.2) participated. Reported screening participation was low, the highest being for Pap Smear (34.4%). Common reasons for screening participation were preventing sickness (56.1%, CI 53.2–59.0%), maintaining health (51%, CI 48–53.9%), and free program provision (30.9%, CI 28.2–33.6%). Females were less likely to state that screening is not beneficial [OR 0.37 (CI 0.21–0.66), p < 0.001] and to cite sickness prevention [OR 2.10 (CI 1.46–3.00), p < 0.001] and free program [OR 1.75 (CI 1.22–2.51), p < 0.003] as reasons for screening participation. Of those who did not participate, 34.6% (CI 30.3–39.1%) stated that there was nothing that discouraged them from participation, with 55- to 64-year olds [OR 0.24 (CI 0.07–0.74), p < 0.04] being less likely to cite this reason. 21% (CI 17.2–24.8%) thought they did not need screening, while a smaller proportion stated not having time (6.9%, CI 4.9–9.7%) and the costs associated with screening (5.2%, CI 3.5–7.7%). The majority of participants (85.3%, CI 81.9–88.2%) supported multiple screening being offered at the same time and location.ConclusionIdentified screening behaviors in this study are similar to those reported in the literature. The high support for the concept of combined cancer screening demonstrates that this type of approach is acceptable to potential end users and warrants further investigation.
topic cancer screening
combined screening
screening behaviors
combined cancer screening
screening participation
url http://journal.frontiersin.org/article/10.3389/fonc.2017.00308/full
work_keys_str_mv AT amandabobridge influencingcancerscreeningparticipationratesprovidingacombinedcancerscreeningprogramaonestopshopcouldbeapotentialanswer
AT kayprice influencingcancerscreeningparticipationratesprovidingacombinedcancerscreeningprogramaonestopshopcouldbeapotentialanswer
AT tiffanykgill influencingcancerscreeningparticipationratesprovidingacombinedcancerscreeningprogramaonestopshopcouldbeapotentialanswer
AT annewtaylor influencingcancerscreeningparticipationratesprovidingacombinedcancerscreeningprogramaonestopshopcouldbeapotentialanswer
_version_ 1725961254662569984