» Articles » PMID: 28298185

General Practitioners' Perceptions of Population Based Bowel Screening and Their Influence on Practice: a Qualitative Study

Overview
Journal BMC Fam Pract
Publisher Biomed Central
Date 2017 Mar 17
PMID 28298185
Citations 10
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

Background: Although largely preventable, Australia has one of the highest rates of bowel cancer in the world. General Practitioners (GPs) have an important role to play in prevention and early detection of bowel cancer, however in Australia this is yet to be optimised and participation remains low. This study sought to understand how GPs' perceptions of bowel screening influence their attitudes to, and promotion of the faecal occult blood test (FOBT), to identify opportunities to enhance their role.

Methods: Interviews were conducted with 31 GPs from metropolitan and regional New South Wales (NSW), Australia. Discussions canvassed GPs' perceptions of their role in bowel screening and the national screening program; perceptions of screening tests; practices regarding discussing screening with patients; and views on opportunities to enhance their role. Transcripts were coded using Nvivo and thematically analysed.

Results: The study revealed GPs' perceptions of screening did not always align with broader public health definitions of 'population screening'. While many GPs reportedly understood the purpose of population screening, notions of the role of asymptomatic screening for bowel cancer prevention were more limited. Descriptions of screening centred on two major uses: the use of a screening 'process' to identify individual patients at higher risk; and the use of screening 'tools', including the FOBT, to aid diagnosis. While the FOBT was perceived as useful for identifying patients requiring follow up, GPs expressed concerns about its reliability. Colonoscopy by comparison, was considered by many as the gold standard for both screening and diagnosis. This perception reflects a conceptualisation of the screening process and associated tools as an individualised method for risk assessment and diagnosis, rather than a public health strategy for prevention of bowel cancer.

Conclusion: The results show that GPs' perceptions of screening do not always align with broader public health definitions of 'population screening'. Furthermore, the way GPs understood screening was shown to impact their clinical practice, influencing their preferences for, and use of 'screening' tools such as FOBT. The findings suggest emphasising the preventative opportunity of FOBT screening would be beneficial, as would formally engaging GPs in the promotion of bowel screening.

Citing Articles

Perspectives of healthcare providers on osteoporosis, falls and fracture risk: a systematic review and thematic synthesis of qualitative studies.

Cho C, Bak G, Sumpton D, Richards B, Sherrington C Arch Osteoporos. 2024; 19(1):90.

PMID: 39313605 PMC: 11420259. DOI: 10.1007/s11657-024-01446-8.


Engaging lower screening groups: a field experiment to evaluate the impact of a multiwave national campaign on participation in the National Bowel Cancer Screening Program.

Gascoyne C, Broun K, Morley B, Wyatt K, Feletto E, Durkin S BMJ Open. 2023; 13(3):e065124.

PMID: 36921953 PMC: 10030563. DOI: 10.1136/bmjopen-2022-065124.


Gastrointestinal Cancer Prevention Policies: A Qualitative Systematic Review and Meta-Synthesis.

Kabiri N, Khodayari-Zarnaq R, Khoshbaten M, Janati A Int J Prev Med. 2022; 13:8.

PMID: 35281982 PMC: 8883678. DOI: 10.4103/ijpvm.IJPVM_419_20.


Engagement of General Practice in an Australian Organised Bowel Cancer Screening Program: A Cross-Sectional Survey of Knowledge and Practice.

Holden C, Frank O, Li M, Manocha R, Caruso J, Turnbull D Asian Pac J Cancer Prev. 2020; 21(7):2099-2107.

PMID: 32711438 PMC: 7573400. DOI: 10.31557/APJCP.2020.21.7.2099.


Patients' views on involving general practice in bowel cancer screening: a South Australian focus group study.

Brown L, Moretti C, Roeger L, Reed R BMJ Open. 2020; 10(5):e035244.

PMID: 32430451 PMC: 7239547. DOI: 10.1136/bmjopen-2019-035244.


References
1.
Arroyave A, Penaranda E, Lewis C . Organizational change: a way to increase colon, breast and cervical cancer screening in primary care practices. J Community Health. 2010; 36(2):281-8. DOI: 10.1007/s10900-010-9309-7. View

2.
Myers R, Sifri R, Hyslop T, Rosenthal M, Vernon S, Cocroft J . A randomized controlled trial of the impact of targeted and tailored interventions on colorectal cancer screening. Cancer. 2007; 110(9):2083-91. DOI: 10.1002/cncr.23022. View

3.
Brotons C, Bjorkelund C, Bulc M, Ciurana R, Godycki-Cwirko M, Jurgova E . Prevention and health promotion in clinical practice: the views of general practitioners in Europe. Prev Med. 2005; 40(5):595-601. DOI: 10.1016/j.ypmed.2004.07.020. View

4.
Rubio-Valera M, Pons-Vigues M, Martinez-Andres M, Moreno-Peral P, Berenguera A, Fernandez A . Barriers and facilitators for the implementation of primary prevention and health promotion activities in primary care: a synthesis through meta-ethnography. PLoS One. 2014; 9(2):e89554. PMC: 3938494. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0089554. View

5.
Keighley M, OMorain C, Giacosa A, Ashorn M, Burroughs A, Crespi M . Public awareness of risk factors and screening for colorectal cancer in Europe. Eur J Cancer Prev. 2004; 13(4):257-62. DOI: 10.1097/01.cej.0000136575.01493.9b. View