» Articles » PMID: 16937533

On Attitudes About Colorectal Cancer Screening Among Gastrointestinal Specialists and General Practitioners in the Netherlands

Overview
Specialty Gastroenterology
Date 2006 Aug 29
PMID 16937533
Citations 4
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

Aim: To find out whether there are differences in attitudes about colorectal cancer (CRC) screening among gastrointestinal (GI) specialists and general practitioners (GPs) and which method is preferred in a national screening program.

Methods: Four hundred and twenty Dutch GI specialists in the Netherlands and 400 GPs in Amsterdam were questioned in 2004. Questions included demographics, affiliation, attitude towards screening both for the general population and themselves, methods of screening, family history and individual risk.

Results: Eighty-four percent of the GI specialists returned the questionnaire in comparison to 32% of the GPs (P < 0.001). Among the GI specialists, 92% favoured population screening whereas 51% of GPs supported population screening (P < 0.001). Of the GI specialists 95% planned to be screened themselves, while 30% of GPs intended to do so (P < 0.001). Regarding the general population, 72% of the GI specialists preferred colonoscopy as the screening method compared to 27% of the GPs (P < 0.001). The method preferred for personal screening was colonoscopy in 97% of the GI specialists, while 29% of the GPs favoured colonoscopy (P < 0.001).

Conclusion: Screening for CRC is strongly supported by Dutch GI specialists and less by GPs. The major health issue is possibly misjudged by GPs. Since GPs play a crucial role in a successful national screening program, CRC awareness should be realized by increasing knowledge about the incidence and mortality, thus increasing awareness of the need for screening among GPs.

Citing Articles

Colorectal cancer screening behaviors of general surgeons and first-degree family members: a survey-based study.

Celik S, Cay H, Bayrakdar E, Ince A, Ince E, Celik Y BMC Gastroenterol. 2019; 19(1):183.

PMID: 31718575 PMC: 6852782. DOI: 10.1186/s12876-019-1106-x.


The use of registered nurses to perform flexible sigmoidoscopy procedures in ontario: a cost minimization analysis.

Costa S, Coyte P, Laporte A, Quigley L, Reynolds S Healthc Policy. 2013; 7(3):e119-30.

PMID: 23372585 PMC: 3298026.


Awareness and attitudes of Greek medical students on colorectal cancer screening.

Papanikolaou I, Sioulas A, Kalimeris S, Papatheodosiou P, Karabinis I, Agelopoulou O World J Gastrointest Endosc. 2012; 4(11):513-7.

PMID: 23189223 PMC: 3506969. DOI: 10.4253/wjge.v4.i11.513.


Colorectal cancer screening perceptions and practices: results from a national survey of gastroenterology, surgery and radiology trainees.

Oxentenko A, Vierkant R, Pardi D, Farley D, Dozois E, Hartman T J Cancer Educ. 2007; 22(4):219-26.

PMID: 18067433 DOI: 10.1007/BF03174120.

References
1.
Helm J, Russo M, Biddle A, Simpson K, Ransohoff D, Sandler R . Effectiveness and economic impact of screening for colorectal cancer by mass fecal occult blood testing. Am J Gastroenterol. 2000; 95(11):3250-8. DOI: 10.1111/j.1572-0241.2000.03261.x. View

2.
Birkenfeld S, Niv Y . Survey of primary physicians' knowledge of colorectal cancer screening. J Clin Gastroenterol. 2005; 40(1):64-7. DOI: 10.1097/01.mcg.0000190763.18734.cd. View

3.
Scholefield J, Moss S, Sufi F, Mangham C, Hardcastle J . Effect of faecal occult blood screening on mortality from colorectal cancer: results from a randomised controlled trial. Gut. 2002; 50(6):840-4. PMC: 1773232. DOI: 10.1136/gut.50.6.840. View

4.
Hermsen M, Postma C, Baak J, Weiss M, Rapallo A, Sciutto A . Colorectal adenoma to carcinoma progression follows multiple pathways of chromosomal instability. Gastroenterology. 2002; 123(4):1109-19. DOI: 10.1053/gast.2002.36051. View

5.
OLeary B, Olynyk J, Neville A, Platell C . Cost-effectiveness of colorectal cancer screening: comparison of community-based flexible sigmoidoscopy with fecal occult blood testing and colonoscopy. J Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2003; 19(1):38-47. DOI: 10.1111/j.1440-1746.2004.03177.x. View