Background
Methods
Results
Study information Country | Screening procedure | Recruitment & sampling | Reminder | Education provided as part of intervention | Intervention timeframe | Participants | Screening uptake/ participation (%) | ||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
HRFQ/ RA | FOBT/FIT | Colonoscopya | Who recruited participants | Sampling | Face-to-face | Phone | Letter/ e-mail | Media | Where recruited | HRFQ | FOBT/ FIT | Colonoscopy | |||||
Stool test uptake > 65% | |||||||||||||||||
Cai et al 2011 Ma et al 2012 China | x | 2 x FIT 1 x FOBT | If + | Unclear (likely led by physician) | Population-based | x | – | – | – | C | – | – | 2007–2009 | Residents aged 40–74 y. (medically & economically underserved) Enrolled n = 31,963 | 84.6 | 76.2 (1 x FIT) 65.3 (2 x FIT) | 78.7 |
Gong et al. 2018 [5] China | x | 2 x FIT | If + | CHC staff | Population -based | (x) | – | – | x | C | x | – | Jan – Dec 2013 | Residents aged 50–74 y. Registered n = 809,528 | 97.7 | 97.7 | 39.8 |
China | x | 1 x RPHA- FOBT | Sigmoidoscopy if + | Field interviewers | Population-based | x | – | – | – | C | – | – | Data used from 1989 to 1996 | Residents aged ≥30 y. Recruited n = 75,813/192,261 eligible residents (39.4%) RPHA-FOBT & Risk assessment: 82.7% | 82.7 | 82.7 | 73.6 |
Hassan et al. 2016 [12] Malaysia | – | 1 x FIT, 2nd if negative) | If + | Physician | Purposive sampling | x | – | – | – | CHC/ H | – | – | 2013 | Patients who underwent iFOBT in 2013 aged ≥50 y. Enrolled n = 750 | – | R1: 94.7 R2: 90.6 | 68.1 |
Noriah et al. 2010 [13] Malaysia | – | 1 x FOBT | If + | Health care workers/ media | IG1: Random sampling IG2: Voluntary Response sampling IG3: Convenience sampling | IG1 & IG 3 | – | – | IG2 | C CHC | – | – | 15th Sept – 31st Dec 2007 | Adults aged ≥50 y. 605/2574 participants IG1 & IG 2: residents IG3: patients IG1 n = 151 (86.6%) IG2 n = 275 (13.8%) IG3 n = 179 (44.8%) | – | IG1: 95.4 IG2: 87.6 IG3: 92.2 | Unclear |
Tze et al. 2016 [14] Malaysia | – | 1 x FIT | If + | Volunteer -medical students (with support from community leaders) | Convenience sampling | x | – | – | – | C | – | Awareness Workshops (group) | 2010–2015 (1-y project in 5 different district every year) | Residents aged ≥50 y. 1581 FIT kits were distributed | – | 80–100% (varied by year) | 63.2–78.6 |
Aniwan et al. 2017 [16] Thailand | – | 1 x FIT | 1 x | Unclear (likely led by nurses) | Convenience sampling | x | – | – | – | H | – | – | Dec 2014 – Dec 2016 | Participants from 6 hospitals across Thailand aged 50–75 y. Enrolled n = 1740 | – | 98.4 | 98.4 |
Remes-Troche et al. 2020 [18] Mexico | – | 1 x FIT | If + | Media (unclear by whom) | Voluntary response sampling | – | – | – | x | C | – | – | 15 May 2015–15 Jan 2016 (Ads for 3 months) | Adults aged ≥50 y. Reply to ads n = 502 Eligible n = 473 | – | 85.8 | 87.5 |
Dimova et al. 2015 [19] Bulgaria | – | 1 x FIT (& 1 if +) | Fibro-C if + | Physicians (contacted people at home) | Purposive sampling | – | x | x | – | C | x | – | Jun – Sept 2013 | Health-insured, asymptomatic adults aged ≥45 y. Invited n = 600 | – | 78.8 | 75 |
Sucevaeanu et al. 2005 [20] Romania | – | 1 x FOBT 3 samples requested | If + | Media (unclear by whom) | Voluntary response sampling | – | – | – | x | C | – | – | May 2003 – Nov 2004 | Adults aged ≥50 y. Patients interested n = 1769 | – | 70.3 | 92.6 |
Scepanovic et al. 2017 [22] Serbia | – | 1 x FIT | If + | Physicians | Random sampling | x | – | – | – | CHC | – | – | Aug – Nov 2013 | Adults aged 50–74 y. Invited n = 50,894 | – | 67.8 | 69.7 |
Gholampour et al. 2018 [24] Iran | – | 1 x FOBT | If + | Unclear | Convenience sampling | (x) | – | – | – | CHC | x | 8 x session (group) | 2016–2017 | Males aged > 50 y. Participants n = 200 | – | IG: 74.0 CG: 6.0 | 100 (n = 1) |
Salimzadeh et al. 2017 [25] Iran | – | 1 x FIT | If + | Health navigators | Purposive sampling | x | x | – | x | C | x | 1 x session (individual) | Unclear | Adults aged 45–75 y. Invited n = 1438 | – | 96.0 | 60.0 |
Stool test uptake 45–65% | |||||||||||||||||
Khuhaprema et al. 2014 [15] Thailand | – | 1 x FIT | If + | CHW | Population-based | x | – | – | – | C | – | – | April 2011- Nov 2012 | Residents aged 50–65 y. Invited n = 127,301 | – | 62.9 | 71.8 |
Bankovic Lazarevic et al. 2016 [21] Serbia | – | 1 x FIT | If + | Physicians | Population- based | – | x | x | – | C | – | – | 2013–2014 (2 years) | Adults aged 50–74 y. Invited n = 99,595 | – | 62.5 | 42.1 |
Huang et al. 2014 [9] China | x | 1 x FOBT vs. 1 x FOBT & HRFQ | If + | CDC officials | Population- based | x | – | – | – | C | – | – | July 2006 – Dec 2008 | Residents aged 40–74 y. Approached n = 400,000 (unclear how many participated) | 53.2 | 45.4 vs 53.2 | 37.3 vs. 46.8 |
Stool test uptake < 45% | |||||||||||||||||
Wu et al. 2019 [7] China | x | 2 x FIT | If + | Unclear, author refers to community mobilization] | Population- based | (x) | – | – | – | C | – | – | 2 rounds (2013–2017) | Residents aged 50–79 y. Eligible n = 1,356,068 | 39.7 | 39.7 | 23.5 |
Abuadas et al. 2018 [23] Jordan | – | Suggested FOBT | Researchers | Convenience sampling | x | – | – | – | H | – | 1 x 1-h session (group) | 1st July – 3rd Nov 2015 | Adults aged 50–75 y. Participants n = 197 | – | IG: 35.7 CG: 8.1 | – | |
China | x | 1 x FOBT | If + | Physician | Population- based | – | – | x | – | C | x | – | 2 rounds (2013–2016) | Residents with medical insurance aged 50–74 y. Invited n = 1,262,214 | 35.2 | 35.2 | 26.3 |
Salimzadeh et al. 2013 [26] Iran | – | Suggested FOBT | – | Research assistants | Convenience sampling | – | x | – | – | C (Health clubs) | x | 1 x 20-min Session (unclear) | July 2011-Nov 2012 | Adults aged ≥50 y. n = 360 | – | FOBT IG: 26.0 CG: 2.8 | IG: 5.0 CG: 0 |
Huang et al. 2011 [8] China | – | 1 x FOBT | – | Health workers | Cluster random sampling | x | – | – | – | C | – | Monthly lectures (group) | May 2008 – May 2010 | Residents Person-times attending lectures n = 8981 Survey completed n = 1041 | – | 24.5 | 12 |
Lin et al. 2019 [11] China | x | 2 x FIT | If + | Media/ SMS (unclear who sent) | Population-based | – | – | – | x | C | x | – | 2015–2017 | Residents aged 50–74 y. 350,581/2,283,214 residents completed 1st stage of screening | 15.4 | 14.0 | 18.9 |
Colonoscopy only | |||||||||||||||||
Garcia-Osogobio et al. 2015 [17] Mexico | – | – | 1x | Employer | Convenience sampling | – | – | x | x | WP (H) | – | – | 2009–2010 | Employees aged 40–79 y. Invited n = 600 | – | – | 16.5 |
Chen et al. 2019 [4] China | x | – | If + | Trained staff | Population- based | x | x | – | x | C | – | – | October 2012–October 2015 | Residents aged 40–69 y. Recruited n = 1,381,561 High-risk n = 182,927 | NR | – | 14.0 |
Recruitment
Intervention (education/screening)
Implementation considerations
Reports and commentaries
Synthesised opportunities and challenges | Further explanation |
---|---|
Challenges | |
Cancer registries have not been established in many LMICs and reporting of cancer-related information is often not mandated. Reliable data on CRC incidence, mortality and screening is therefore often lacking. This leads to and underrepresentation of the cancer problem in LMICs and as a result, lack of funding. | |
The general public lacks awareness about CRC, CRC screening and the importance of early detection of CRC. | |
Lack of specialised staff (e.g. endoscopists, oncologists, radiotherapists, gastroenterologists) and lack of specialised training opportunities leading to lack of appointments for screening and treatment. | |
Screening services are not widely available and there are long-waiting times for colonoscopies and endoscopies. There is a lack of screening equipment and structural deficiencies including screening centres. It can also be difficult to travel to services for patients who live in rural areas. | |
Lack of organised screening programmes/screening guidelines. Some regions completely lack access to CRC screening at primary care level. | |
Other health services are prioritised over CRC screening in countries where incidence is low. The relatively low importance ascribed to CRC is due partly to an underestimation of the problem of CRC (due to lack of data) as well as other, often communicable, conditions taking priority. | |
Low level of awareness among physicians about CRC and poor implementation of screening guidelines. | |
Lack of funding to improve infrastructure and access to screening programmes, staff, centres, treatment, etc. | |
Cost can be a barrier where screening and cancer treatment expenses need to be covered by patients (challenge to make CRC screening widely accessible) | |
Lack of CRC awareness raising activities and information about CRC in general likely contributes to low public awareness. | |
Opportunities | |
Establish timely, reliable and efficient health information system for the design, management and evaluation of CRC prevention activities. Implement electronic medical records to allow for ICD-10 coding. Set up a cancer registry where there is none. | |
Identify cost-effective, culturally-acceptable CRC screening methods and conduct cost-effectiveness evaluation of services to understand impact of services and improve existing practice. | |
Improve and align infrastructure, improve equitable distribution of screening technology throughout regions | |
Train specialised staff to conduct screening. Options are to train individuals from other specialities and non-physicians to deliver services and to provide e-training. Improved /annual standardised training should also be delivered for personnel who are already practicing. | |
Improve collection of family history and other information related to high-risk of CRC. Screen population at high-risk to better utilise resources and improve awareness on screening guidelines by family history/ high-risk. | |
Committed, coordinated and comprehensive approach to make CRC a public health priority. One option is bulk purchasing of screening tests from governments so that procedures can be streamlined, costs reduced and efficiency increased | |
Improve CRC awareness among HCPs and patients through for example CRC awareness campaigns/ programmes | |
The increasing CRC incidence is demanding better programmes. Establish national screening programmes, guidelines for CRC screening/ organized screening strategy and establish cancer control planning through dedicated agencies/ NGOs and/or government. | |
Utilize patient navigation; review positive result letter to improve colonoscopy compliance; improve communication about CRC risk and the importance of early screening and follow-up screening/ treatment (colonoscopy) to improve compliance rates | |
Improve programme quality control, quality assurance to ensure optimal impact and improve the quality of health care services |