Skip to main content
Key Specialties
Cardiology Diabetology Endocrinology Gastroenterology Geriatrics and Gerontology Gynecology and Obstetrics Hematology Infectious Disease Internal Medicine Nephrology Neurology Oncology Pediatrics Respiratory Medicine Rheumatology Surgery
Congress Coverage
2024 ACC Congress 2023 ESMO Congress 2023 EASD Congress 2023 ERS Congress 2023 ESC Congress
Clinical Collections
Advances in Alzheimer’s

At a glance: The STEP trials

A round-up of the STEP phase 3 clinical trials evaluating semaglutide for weight loss in people with overweight or obesity.
ADVANCED SEARCH
Log in
Top
BMC Public Health
Published in: BMC Public Health 1/2016

Open Access 01-12-2016 | Research article

The Dutch public are positive about the colorectal cancer-screening programme, but is this a well-informed opinion?

Authors: Linda N. Douma, Ellen Uiters, Danielle R. M. Timmermans

Published in: BMC Public Health | Issue 1/2016

Login to get access

Abstract

Background

Population-based colorectal cancer (CRC) screening is widely recommended, and members of the eligible screening population seem to be positive about it. However, it is not well known how people outside the eligible screening population view CRC screening, and whether they are supportive of the government providing this. Public opinion may affect people’s personal views and their screening decision.
The aim of our study was to examine the opinion of the Dutch general public regarding the national CRC screening programme.

Method

An online survey was carried out in a Dutch population sample of adults aged 18 and older, assessing level of support, personal attitude, collective attitude, perceived social norm, awareness, and knowledge regarding the CRC screening programme.

Results

The response rate was 56% (n = 1679/3000). Generally, the Dutch public are positive about and supportive of the CRC screening programme. We found the biggest proportion of support (86%) when people were asked directly. A smaller proportion (48%) was supportive when people had to choose between other options concerning how the government could possibly deal with CRC. People report knowing more about the benefits of CRC screening than about its possible harms and risks. Many people found it difficult to answer the knowledge questions that asked about numerical information concerning CRC screening correctly.

Conclusion

People were less supportive of the CRC screening programme when having to choose between other options concerning dealing with CRC, and their support may not be based on a full comprehension of what CRC screening entails. Further research is needed to establish what knowledge people need in order to form a well-founded opinion.
Appendix
Available only for authorised users
Literature
1.
2.
3.
Hardcastle JD, Chamberlain JO, Robinson MH. Randomised controlled trial of faecal-occult-blood screening for colorectal cancer. Lancet. 1996;348(9040):1472–7.CrossRefPubMed
4.
Kronborg O, Fenger C, Olsen J, Jorgensen OD, Sondergaard O. Randomised study of screening for colorectal cancer with faecaloccult-blood test. Lancet. 1996;348(9040):1467–71.CrossRefPubMed
5.
Mandel JS, Bond JH, Church TR. Reducing mortality from colorectal cancer by screening for fecal occult blood. Minnesota Colon Cancer Control Study. N Engl J Med. 1993;328(19):1365–71.CrossRefPubMed
6.
Winawer SJ, Zauber AG, Ho MN, et al. Prevention of colorectal cancer by colonoscopic polypectomy. The National Polyp Study Workgroup. N Engl J Med. 1993;329(27):1977–81.CrossRefPubMed
7.
Commission of the European Communities. Council Recommendation on Cancer Screening, vol. 2003/0093. Brussels: Commission of the European Communities; 2003.
8.
Sung JJ, Lau JY, Young GP. Asia Pacific consensus recommendations for colorectal cancer screening. Gut. 2008;57(8):1166–76.CrossRefPubMed
9.
Bibbins-Domingo K, Grossman DC, Curry SJ, Davidson KW, Epling Jr JW, Garcia FA, Gillman MW, Harper DM, Kemper AR, Krist AH, et al. Screening for Colorectal Cancer: US Preventive Services Task Force Recommendation Statement. JAMA. 2016;315(23):2564–75.CrossRefPubMed
10.
Gezondheidsraad (Health Council of the Netherlands). Bevolkingsonderzoek naar darmkanker. Den Haag: Gezondheidsraad; 2009.
11.
12.
Whitlock EP, Lin J, Liles E, Beil T, Fu R, O’Connor E, Thompson RN, Cardenas T. U.S. Preventive Services Task Force Evidence Syntheses, formerly Systematic Evidence Reviews. In: Screening for Colorectal Cancer: An Updated Systematic Review. Rockville: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (US); 2008.
13.
Saquib N, Saquib J, Ioannidis JP. Does screening for disease save lives in asymptomatic adults? Systematic review of meta-analyses and randomized trials. Int J Epidemiol. 2015;44(1):264–77.CrossRefPubMed
14.
15.
16.
Jepson RG, Hewison J, Thompson A, Weller D. Patient perspectives on information and choice in cancer screening: a qualitative study in the UK. Soc Sci Med. 2007;65(5):890–9.CrossRefPubMed
17.
Johansson M, Brodersen J. Informed choice in screening needs more than information. Lancet. 2015;385(9978):1597–9.CrossRefPubMed
18.
Gotzsche P. Commentary: Screening: a seductive paradigm that has generally failed us. Int J Epidemiol. 2015;44(1):278–80.CrossRefPubMed
19.
Rimer BK, Briss PA, Zeller PK, Chan EC, Woolf SH. Informed decision making: what is its role in cancer screening? Cancer. 2004;101(5 Suppl):1214–28.CrossRefPubMed
20.
21.
van Leerdam ME, Toes E, Spaander VMCM, van Vuuren AJ, Dekker E, Kuipers EJ, et al. Eerste resultaten bevolkingsonderzoek darmkanker. Bilthoven: Rijksinstituut voor Volksgezondheid en Milieu (RIVM); 2014.
22.
LETB. Landelijke evaluatie van bevolkingsonderzoek naar borstkanker in Nederland 1990-2011/2012. Het dertiende evaluatierapport. In: Maatschappelijke Gezondheidszorg. Nijmegen: Erasmus MC, Rotterdam & Afdeling Health Evidence, Radboud universitair medisch centrum; 2014.
23.
LEBA. Landelijke Evaluatie Bevolkingsonderzoek naar Baarmoederhalskanker 2011. Rotterdam: Erasmus MC afdeling maatschappelijke gezondheidszorg; 2012.
24.
Cullati S, Charvet-Berard AI, Perneger TV. Cancer screening in a middle-aged general population: factors associated with practices and attitudes. BMC Public Health. 2009;9:118.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
25.
Hall NJ, Rubin GP, Dobson C, Weller D, Wardle J, Ritchie M, Rees CJ: Attitudes and beliefs of non-participants in a population-based screening programme for colorectal cancer. Health Expect. 2013;18:1645–1657.
26.
McCaffery K, Wardle J, Waller J. Knowledge, attitudes, and behavioral intentions in relation to the early detection of colorectal cancer in the United Kingdom. Prev Med. 2003;36(5):525–35.CrossRefPubMed
27.
Murphy CC, Vernon SW, Haddock NM, Anderson ML, Chubak J, Green BB. Longitudinal predictors of colorectal cancer screening among participants in a randomized controlled trial. Prev Med. 2014;66:123–30.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
28.
Smith SK, Simpson JM, Trevena LJ, McCaffery KJ. Factors Associated with Informed Decisions and Participation in Bowel Cancer Screening among Adults with Lower Education and Literacy. Med Decis Mak. 2014;34(6):756–72.CrossRef
29.
Schwartz LM, Woloshin S, Fowler FJ, Welch HG. Enthusiasm for cancer screening in the United States. J Am Med Assoc. 2004;291(1):71–8.CrossRef
30.
Waller J, Osborne K, Wardle J. Enthusiasm for cancer screening in Great Britain; a general population study. Br J Cancer. 2015;112:562–6.CrossRefPubMed
31.
van den Bruel A, Jones C, Yang Y, Oke J, Hewitson P. People’s willingness to accept overdetection in cancer screening: population survey. BMJ. 2015;350:h980.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
32.
Park HS, Smith SW. Distinctiveness and Influence of Subjective Norms, Personal Descriptive and Injunctive Norms, and Societal Descriptive and Injunctive Norms on Behavioral Intent: A Case of Two Behaviors Critical to Organ Donation. Hum Commun Res. 2007;33:194–218.CrossRef
33.
Mutz DC. Impersonal Influence: How Perceptions of Mass Collectives Affect Political Attitudes. New York: Cambridge University Press; 1998.CrossRef
34.
Fiske ST, Taylor SE. Social cognition. 2nd ed. New York: McGraw-Hill; 1991.
35.
Noelle-Neumann E. The spiral of silence: a theory of public opinion. J Commun. 1974;24:43–51.CrossRef
36.
Soroka S, Maioni A, Martin P. What moves public opinion on health care? Individual experiences, system performance, and media framing. J Health Polit Policy Law. 2013;38(5):893–920.CrossRefPubMed
37.
Bleackley A, Hennessy M, Fishbein M. Public Opinion on Sex Education in US Schools. Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med. 2006;160:1151–6.CrossRef
38.
Corbett M. American public opinion: Trends, processes, and patterns. New York: Longman; 1991.
39.
Hoffman LH, Glynn CJ, Huge ME, Sietman RB, Thomson T. The Role of Communication in Public Opinion Processes: Understanding the Impacts of Intrapersonal, Media, and Social Filters. Int J Public Opin Res. 2007;19(3):287–312.CrossRef
40.
Nisbet M, Markowitz EM. Understanding Public Opinion in Debates over Biomedical Research: Looking beyond Political Partisanship to Focus on Beliefs about Science and Society. PLoS One. 2014;9(2):e88473.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
41.
Ho SS, Brossard D, Scheufele DA. Effects of Value Predispositions, Mass Media Use, and Knowledge on Public Attitudes Toward Embryonic Stem Cell Research. Int J Public Opin Res. 2008;20(2):171–92.CrossRef
42.
Beydoun HA, Beydoun MA. Predictors of colorectal cancer screening behaviors among average-risk older adults in the United States. Cancer Causes Control. 2008;19(4):339–59.CrossRefPubMed
43.
Power E, Miles A, Von Wagner C, Robb K, Wardle J. Uptake of colorectal cancer screening: system, provider and individual factors and strategies to improve participation. Future Oncol. 2009;5(9):1371–88.CrossRefPubMed
44.
Wardle J, McKaffery K, Nadel M, Atkin W. Socioeconomic differences in cancer screening participation: comparing cognitive and psychosocial explanations. Soc Sci Med. 2004;59:249–61.CrossRefPubMed
45.
Smith-McLallen A, Fishbein M. Predictors of intentions to perform six cancer-related behaviours: Roles for injunctive and descriptive norms. Psychol Health Med. 2008;13(4):389–401.CrossRefPubMed
46.
Ajzen I. The theory of planned behavior. Organ Behav Hum Decis Process. 1991;50(2):179–211.CrossRef
47.
von Wagner C, Baio G, Raine R, Snowball J, Morris S, Atkin W, Obichere A, Handley G, Logan RF, Rainbow S, et al. Inequalities in participation in an organized national colorectal cancer screening programme: results from the first 2.6 million invitations in England. Int J Epidemiol. 2011;40(3):712–8.CrossRef
48.
Denters MJ, Deutekom M, Essink-Bot ML, Bossuyt PM, Fockens P, Dekker E. Assessing knowledge and attitudes towards screening among users of faecal immunochemical test. Health Expect. 2013;18(5):839–49.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
49.
Fisher RJ. Social desirability bias and the validity of indirect questioning. J Consum Res. 1993;20:303–15.CrossRef
50.
Nederhof AJ. Methods of coping with social desirability bias: a review. Eur J Soc Psychol. 1985;15:263–80.CrossRef
51.
van Dam L, Korfage IJ, Kuipers EJ, Hol L, van Roon AH, Reijerink JC, van Ballegooijen M, van Leerdam ME. What influences the decision to participate in colorectal cancer screening with faecal occult blood testing and sigmoidoscopy? Eur J Cancer. 2013;49(10):2321–30.CrossRefPubMed
52.
Siegrist M, Cvetokovich G. Perception of hazards: the role of social trust and knowledge. Risk Anal. 2000;20(5):713–9.CrossRefPubMed
53.
Brewer NT, Chapman GB, Gibbons FX, Gerrard M, McCaul KD, Weinstein ND. Meta-analysis of the relationship between risk perception and health behavior: the example of vaccination. Health Psychol. 2007;26(2):136–45.CrossRefPubMed
54.
55.
Oliver A. Further evidence of preference reversals: choice, valuation and ranking over distributions of life expectancy. J Health Econ. 2006;25(5):803–20.CrossRefPubMed
56.
Slothuus U, Larsen ML, Junker P. The contingent ranking method--a feasible and valid method when eliciting preferences for health care? Soc Sci Med. 2002;54(10):1601–9.CrossRefPubMed
57.
Gotzsche PC, Nielsen M. Screening for breast cancer with mammography. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2011;1:CD001877.
58.
59.
60.
Goffman E. Frame Analysis: An Essay on the Organization of Experience. New York: Harper & Row; 1974.
61.
Chong D, Druckman JN. Framing Theory. Annu Rev Polit Sci. 2007;10(1):103–26.CrossRef
62.
de Haan MC, de Wijkerslooth TR, Stoop E, Bossuyt P, Fockens P, Thomeer M, Kuipers EJ, Essink-Bot ML, van Leerdam ME, Dekker E, et al. Informed decision-making in colorectal cancer screening using colonoscopy or CT-colonography. Patient Educ Couns. 2013;91(3):318–25.CrossRefPubMed
63.
Oldach BR, Katz ML. Health literacy and cancer screening: a systematic review. Patient Educ Couns. 2014;94(2):149–57.CrossRefPubMed
64.
van der Heide I, Uiters E, Jantine Schuit A, Rademakers J, Fransen M. Health literacy and informed decision making regarding colorectal cancer screening: a systematic review. Eur J Pub Health. 2015;25(4):575–82.CrossRef
65.
Crowson CS, Therneau TM, Matteson EL, Gabriel SE. Primer: Demystifying risk--understanding and communicating medical risks. Nat Clin Pract Rheumatol. 2007;3(3):181–7.CrossRefPubMed
66.
Dillard AJ, Couper MP, Zikmund-Fisher BJ. Perceived risk of cancer and patient reports of participation in decisions about screening: the DECISIONS study. Med Decis Mak. 2010;30(5 Suppl):96S–105S.CrossRef
67.
Gigerenzer G, Hertwig R, van den Broek E, Fasolo B, Katsikopoulos KV. “A 30% chance of rain tomorrow”: how does the public understand probabilistic weather forecasts? Risk Anal. 2005;25(3):623–9.CrossRefPubMed
68.
Zipkin DA, Umscheid CA, Keating NL, Allen E, Aung K, Beyth R, Kaatz S, Mann DM, Sussman JB, Korenstein D, et al. Evidence-based risk communication: a systematic review. Ann Intern Med. 2014;161(4):270–80.CrossRefPubMed
Metadata
Title
The Dutch public are positive about the colorectal cancer-screening programme, but is this a well-informed opinion?
Authors
Linda N. Douma
Ellen Uiters
Danielle R. M. Timmermans
Publication date
01-12-2016
Publisher
BioMed Central
Published in
BMC Public Health / Issue 1/2016
Electronic ISSN: 1471-2458
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1186/s12889-016-3870-7

Other articles of this Issue 1/2016

BMC Public Health 1/2016 Go to the issue

Research article

Lone parents, health, wellbeing and welfare to work: a systematic review of qualitative studies

Research article

Maternal profiles and social determinants of malnutrition and the MDGs: What have we learnt?

Research article

Vitamin D deficiency is associated with high prevalence of diabetes in Kuwaiti adults: results from a national survey

Research article

Preparedness of HIV care and treatment clinics for the management of concomitant non–communicable diseases: a cross–sectional survey

Research article

Association between education and future leisure-time physical inactivity: a study of Finnish twins over a 35-year follow-up

Research article

Factors influencing mother’s participation in Posyandu for improving nutritional status of children under-five in Aceh Utara district, Aceh province, Indonesia