Background
Methods and Results
Search strategy and approach
-
What is the current state of bowel cancer and bowel cancer screening among Indigenous Australians?
-
How is the NBCSP disseminated and what may be influencing Indigenous participation?
-
Are there any aspects of the program which appear problematic and which could be modified to improve participation?
1. Descriptive review
1.1 Bowel cancer in Indigenous Australians- epidemiology and data quality
1.2 Bowel cancer screening and Australia's National Bowel Cancer Screening Program
1.3 Indigenous participation and test profile - results of National Bowel Cancer Screening Program monitoring reports, 2006-2008
Participation rate | |||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Gender
|
Males
|
Females
|
Total
| Females 1.2 times more likely to participate than males | |||
36.2 *(2008) | 43.3* (2008) | 39.7 | |||||
36.0 (2009) | 42.6 (2009) | 39.3 | |||||
Indigenous Status#
|
Non-Indigenous
|
Indigenous
|
Total
| Indigenous people are 2.3 times less likely to participate Than non-Indigenous people | |||
38.6 (2008)* | 17*(2008) | 38.3 | |||||
37.0* | 17.0* | ||||||
45.4 (Pilot) | |||||||
SES
|
Lowest SES
|
Highest SES
| Participation significantly lower in the most disadvantaged quintile compared to any other quintile | ||||
37.5*(2008) | 41* (2008) | ||||||
Geographic Location
|
Very Remote
|
Remote
|
Outer Regional
|
Inner Regional
|
Cities
|
Total
| Proportion of those who participate was significantly lower in remote and very remote compared to the national level. Participation was significantly higher in inner regional compared to other areas. |
25.6*(2008) | 35.5 | 40.9 | 43.7 | 38.4 | 39.7* | ||
25.0(2009) | 39.1 | 40.1 | |||||
Spoken language
|
English as preferred language
|
Other language preferred
| Those whose preferred correspondence language was English were 1.6 times (2008) and 2.9 times (2009) more likely to participate | ||||
42.2* (2008) | 27.0* (2008) | ||||||
41.1* (2009) | 14.0* (2009) | ||||||
FOBT Positivity rate
| |||||||
Gender
|
Males
|
Females
|
Total
| ||||
8.9* | 6.4* | 7.5 (2008) | |||||
7.7 | 5.7 | 6.6 (2009) | |||||
Indigenous Status#
|
Non-Indigenous
|
Indigenous
| Not statistically significant difference due to small numbers | ||||
7.5 (2008) | 8.6 (2008) | ||||||
6.6 (2009) | 8.1 (2009) | ||||||
Geographic location
|
Very Remote
|
Remote
|
Outer Regional
|
Inner Regional
|
Cities
|
Total
| |
8.7*(2008) | 8.7*(2008) | 8.6* | 7.9* | 7.2* | 7.5 | ||
8.4 (2009) | 7.8 (2009) | 7.3 (2009) | 6.4 (2009) | ||||
SES
|
Low SES
|
Highest SES
| |||||
7.8 (2009) | 5.5 (2009) | ||||||
Proportion of correctly completed tests | |||||||
Indigenous status#
|
Non-Indigenous
|
Indigenous
| Significantly lower in Indigenous compared to non-Indigenous participants. Indigenous females aged over 65 have lowest correctly completed tests | ||||
96.3 * | 93.9 * | ||||||
Preferrred language
|
English
|
Other
|
Total
| Significantly lower number of correctly completed tests among those whose preferred language is not English | |||
96.7* | 91.7 * | 96.2 | |||||
Disability status/activity limitation#
|
Severe or profound
|
None
|
Total
| Significantly lower number of correctly completed tests in those with activity limitation | |||
90.6* | 96.5* | 96.2 | |||||
Geographic location
|
Very Remote
|
Remote
|
Outer regional
|
Inner regional
|
Major cities
|
Total
| |
96.0 | 97.4* | 96.8* | 96.9* | 95.8* | 96.2 | ||
Primary Practitioner visits after a positive test
| |||||||
Indigenous status#
|
Indigenous
|
Non-Indigenous
|
Total
| No significant difference | |||
46.4 | 43.7 | 43.2 | |||||
Preferred language
|
English
|
Other language
| Those with a preferred language other than English were significantly less likely to visit a GP after a positive test result. | ||||
43.6* | 40.0* | ||||||
SES
|
Lowest SES
|
Highest SES
| Those in the most disadvantaged quintile were significantly more likely to see a GP following a positive test result | ||||
43.9* | 40.4* |
Critical Review and Interpretation
1.1 Factors contributing to poor uptake of bowel cancer screening in Indigenous populations
Country | Organised Screening Program | CRC Incidence | CRC Mortality | Screening recommendations/characteristics | Participation by Indigenous groups |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
(per 100 000) | (per 100 000) | ||||
Indigenous vs non-Indigenous population | Indigenous vs non-Indigenous population | ||||
Australia | Yes | 36.6 vs 52.4 [13] for females** | 17.9 vs 19.8^^[115] | Free once-off iFOBT For those aged 50, 55 & 65 yrs | |
Kit posted to all in these age groups | |||||
39.9 vs 76.4 [13] for males** | Currently only a once-off test | ||||
New Zealand | No | 15.5 vs 24.1*[116] | 8.8 vs 9.8*[116] | No program in place yet | No data available |
Once diagnosed with CRC, Maori are two thirds more likely to die | Relative risk of mortality in Maori is 1.24 after adjusting for age, sex and stage [6] | Opportunistic screening only | |||
Mortality: Incidence ratio: | |||||
57% Maori vs 41% in non-Maori | |||||
Canada | Yes | 37.2 vs 34.8 for femalesc
| 16.1 vs 18.4 [118]b
| FOBT (guaiac) every 2 years | 30% adherence in general population but no specific data on Indigenous participation [94] |
(in certain provinces only ie. Ontario and Alberta) | 55.1 vs 67 for malesc [117] | For those aged 50-74 yrs. | |||
Kit obtained free from health care provider. | |||||
Information sheet available in Inuit language. | |||||
USA | No | 17.9 (AI/AN) vs 21.0 (USA all races)a [121] | Recommendation by professional organisation for either; | Any CRC screening in last 2 years: | |
(Recommendations in place but no organised or national program. Primarily opportunistic and some state programmes exist) | Mortality rate ratio: 1.15 vs 0.89 (10)a
| Annual FOBT or | 38.1% AI/AN vs 58.5% non-Hispanic white [122] | ||
5 yearly flexible sigmoidoscopy or | FOBT: 5.8% (AI/AN) vs 12.6% (white) [120] | ||||
combination of the above two, or | Sigmoidoscopy or colonoscopy: | ||||
10 yearly colonoscopy | 31.7 (AI/AN) vs 45.8 (white) [120] | ||||
For everyone over 50 yrs [48] | Endoscopy or FOBT: 34.4 vs 49.5 [120] |
Socio-cultural and behavioural barriers | Structural barriers |
---|---|
Individual barriers | Access barriers |
Poor knowledge and awareness of cancer and screening services | Poor coordination of services, from screening to follow-up and treatment |
Low levels of health literacy | Lack of transportation |
Language/literacy barriers | Distance barriers/rural residence |
Low perceived risk | Frequent moving, changing address |
Negative attitude | Child care commitments (family responsibilities) |
Worry or fear of cancer | Inflexible clinic schedules |
Fatalism regarding cancer | Lack of Indigenous staff |
Low priority of screening | Difficulties negotiating/communicating with providers and organizations due to language/literacy or cultural differences |
Perceived self efficacy | |
Lack of appropriate health information | |
Presence of co-morbidities | Lack of health promotion material in Indigenous languages |
History of racism and distrust in medical institutions | |
Discomfort with mainstream services/alienating hospital environment | |
Absence of holistic, culturally appropriate cancer services | |
Economic
| |
Cost of seeing a GP including transport | |
Unsure of potential costs of follow-up and treatment | |
Costs for travel and accommodation to hospital | |
Provider-related
| |
Lack of understanding of cultural needs | |
Poor identification of Indigenous status | |
Lack of appropriate resources |
2.2 Findings from the evaluation of the bowel cancer screening pilot program
2.3 How does the NBCSP exclude Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders?
1. Medicare enrolment requirement |
2. Postal route of FOBT screening kit distribution |
3. Role of the General Practitioner |
4. Target age group |
5. Health information systems around recording Indigenous status |
6. Other logistical issues- privacy, storage and test viability |
7. Literacy requirement |
8. Nature of the screening test |
9. Barriers to compliance with follow-up and treatment |
i) Medicare enrolment requirement
ii) Postal route of FOBT screening kit distribution
iii) Role of the General Practitioner
iv) Target age group
v) Health information systems around recording Indigenous status
vi) Other logistical issues- privacy, storage and test viability
vii) Literacy requirement
viii) Nature of the screening test
ix) Barriers to compliance with follow-up and treatment
2.3 Strategies used for improving participation in CRC screening of Indigenous and ethnic minorities internationally
Approach | Study Type | Screening type | Population group targeted | Observed changes in screening uptake or intent to screen for CRC |
---|---|---|---|---|
1. Organizational/system changes
| ||||
Patient navigators to overcome patient reported barriers from screening to treatment [123] | RCT | Any CRC screening | Low income and non-English speaking | Uptake of CRC screening post-intervention was 27% vs 12% (p‹ 0.001) before intervention. |
Culturally sensitive patient navigators and physician recommendation [124] | RCT | Endoscopy and FOBT | Low income, Hispanic patients attending primary care practice | Completion of endoscopy 6 months post intervention was 15.8% in intervention group vs 5% in control (physician recommendation only) (p= 0.019) Completion of FOBT 3 months post intervention was 42.1% in intervention group vs 25% in control group (p = 0.086) |
Patient navigator combined with reminder letter [125] | Intervention | Any CRC screening | English speaking, Immigrants from Brazil, Portugal & Haiti | 31% of intervention group vs 9% control patients completed screening after 6 months |
2. Targeting of healthcare users
| ||||
Culturally appropriate intervention using health educator and bilingual educational material [126] | RCT | FOBT | Chinese Americans | Uptake of FOBT after 6 months was 69.5% intervention group vs 27% control group |
Four groups; 1-Tailored intervention 2-Standard intervention 3-Tailored intervention plus phone reminder 4-Control | RCT [128] | Any CRC screening | Mixture of African American (58%) and white | Screening assessed 2 years post intervention: Screening completion among those in the intervention groups ranged from 44-48% vs 33% control group (p‹0.05) [128] |
RCT | Endoscopy | Low SES Latino | Intent to obtain CRC screening via endoscopy increased in those exposed to storytelling compared to those exposed to risk tool based information (p = 0.038) | |
Community based awareness and educational interventions [130] | Participatory using intervention material developed through participatory approach | Any CRC screening | Rural white | Intention to screen increased significantly in those exposed to educational materials and who had not been tested in the last 5 yrs compared to those that had (p = 0.025). |
Community-based participatory [131] Using culturally relevant approach and education held on a ‘family day'. Followed by intensive follow-up and encouragement of participants by letters and phone calls | Participatory | Any CRC screening | Rural Native Hawaiian in Hawaii | Increase in compliance with CRC screening in both men and women. CRC screening 6 months post intervention increased in men from 39% to 75% (p = 0.002) and in women 36% to 76% (p = 0.002) Limitations- small sample size (28 men and 25 women) |
Culturally appropriate education to enhance knowledge and screening [132] Assigned to one of three groups: 1. Cultural & self-empowerment group 2. Traditional group 3. Modified cultural group 4. Control | Experimental/repeated measures | FOBT | African-American Elders | Knowledge assessed at 6 and 12 months. FOBT screening assessed at 12 months and found greater participation in those in Cultural & Self Empowerment group. |
Intensive one-on-one patient education [133] | RCT | FOBT | Ethnically diverse group | Proportion of patients returning FOBT was significantly higher in intensive education group compared with those receiving standard education (65.6% vs 51.3% p‹0.01) |
Telephone support intervention [134] | RCT | Any CRC screening | Minority, low income women | Proportion of women completing CRC screening increased from 39% to 54% in the intervention group and 39% to 50% in the control group (p = 0.13) |
Tailored telephone outreach [135] | RCT | Any CRC screening | Minority | CRC screening compliance 6 months post intervention was 27% in intervention group vs 6.1% in control group (mailed print material) |
Education with Elderly Educators [136] Four educational methods: 1. Elderly Educators 2. Elderly Educators plus Adaption for Aging Changes method 3. Adaption for Aging Changes method 4. Traditional method | 2-by-2 factorial design | FOBT | Socioeconomically disadvantaged African Americans and White | Participation in FOBT was 93% in those receiving combination of Elderly Educators plus Adaption for Aging Changes method, 63% in those exposed to Elderly Educators only and 43% participation in those receiving Adaptation for Aging changes method only and 56% exposed to traditional method. |
Video-based education [137] | RCT | FOBT | Majority had less than high school education | 69.6% of intervention group returned FOBT vs 54.4% in control group (p = 0.035) |
Discussion and Conclusion
Recommendations
|
1) Alternative means of distribution of FOBT test kits |
Provide an alternative mechanism of delivery and return of kit (to target those who may not have a post box or Medicare enrolment). This could entail supplying hospitals and AMSs with kits to distribute to increase opportunistic screening. |
2) Dedicated health personnel for follow-up and support
|
Ensure there is a dedicated health worker knowledgeable about the program to follow-up individuals receiving a kit and to provide personalised advice, education and assistance with completing the test. Intensive support of Aboriginal people will be necessary for increasing screening uptake. |
3) Integration of screening into primary care/general chronic disease management
|
GPs have an important role in actively encouraging participation in screening [96], however many GPs are neither supportive of or knowledgeable enough about the program nor do they have time to discuss screening with patients [138, 139]. Their key role in the program means that whether a patient has a regular GP or not can affect participation and attendance to follow up procedures. (If an individual receives a positive test but has not nominated a GP, then is it is up to the individual to follow up their test result) |
The key role of the GP in activating post screening diagnostic and follow up requires reconsideration of alternative approaches using either dedicated health professionals or centralised screening centres to support a greater number of people having access to the screening kit and opportunities for referral. Opportunistic screening through file tagging is also another potential way in which to improve participation [140]. |
Completion of forms by GPs and colonoscopists should be mandatory as should identification of Indigenous status in order to attain greater quality data that will give an indication of the burden of bowel cancer and how the program impacts on incidence and mortality, and levels of follow-up and treatment. This is also important for the general population. Perhaps greater incentives for health professionals may be needed for this as presently GPs receive $7.70 for each form submitted [95]. |
The administrative role of GPs in the program is poorly defined and needs attention with accountability and responsibilities clarified, and appropriate interventions implemented to increase GP's awareness of their roles and responsibilities [95]. |
4) Improve health promotion and availability of culturally relevant educational materials
|
Greater coverage of bowel cancer screening in health promotion campaigns and the media is needed to increase general knowledge and awareness in the population. This will also help to remove the shame and stigma associated with discussing bowel cancer. Promotional activities should occur prior to individuals receiving the kit so that there is some awareness and expectation of the test. |
Increase the availability of culturally appropriate, Indigenous-specific educational resources, if possible in local languages and including local terms for main parts of the body. Translated materials were available in 13 languages for CALD groups during the pilot therefore it should be possible to make information and brochures available in Indigenous languages. |
To overcome the literacy barrier, greater emphasis on pictorial methods of education including videos and diagrams should be included with the screening kit. |
5) More community-based participatory research into Indigenous understandings and perceptions of bowel cancer
|
Further research into Aboriginal understandings and perceptions of CRC and CRC screening, including knowledge, beliefs and attitudes is necessary to inform appropriate approaches for intervention and resources. This includes a greater emphasis on participatory methods of health promotion. |
6) Implement ongoing annual or biennial screening for CRC
|
Currently the NBCSP is offering only once of testing to the Australian population and only to those in the specified age brackets. Provision of funding for ongoing rounds of screening are necessary for not only targeting a greater number of people and enhancing opportunities for screening uptake, but allowing time for familiarization with the program[141]. |
7) Ensure Indigenous Australians have access to FOBT kits from the age of 45 years
|
Given the younger age at which CRC is occurring among Indigenous people, consideration should be given to ensuring screening kits are available to Indigenous Australians from the age of 40-45 years. |