Skip to main content

Main menu

  • HOME
  • LATEST ARTICLES
  • ALL ISSUES
  • AUTHORS & REVIEWERS
  • RESOURCES
    • About BJGP Open
    • BJGP Open Accessibility Statement
    • Editorial Board
    • Editorial Fellowships
    • Audio Abstracts
    • eLetters
    • Alerts
    • BJGP Life
    • Research into Publication Science
    • Advertising
    • Contact
  • SPECIAL ISSUES
    • Artificial Intelligence in Primary Care: call for articles
    • Social Care Integration with Primary Care: call for articles
    • Special issue: Telehealth
    • Special issue: Race and Racism in Primary Care
    • Special issue: COVID-19 and Primary Care
    • Past research calls
    • Top 10 Research Articles of the Year
  • BJGP CONFERENCE →
  • RCGP
    • British Journal of General Practice
    • BJGP for RCGP members
    • RCGP eLearning
    • InnovAIT Journal
    • Jobs and careers

User menu

  • Alerts

Search

  • Advanced search
Intended for Healthcare Professionals
BJGP Open
  • RCGP
    • British Journal of General Practice
    • BJGP for RCGP members
    • RCGP eLearning
    • InnovAIT Journal
    • Jobs and careers
  • Subscriptions
  • Alerts
  • Log in
  • Follow BJGP Open on Instagram
  • Visit bjgp open on Bluesky
  • Blog
Intended for Healthcare Professionals
BJGP Open

Advanced Search

  • HOME
  • LATEST ARTICLES
  • ALL ISSUES
  • AUTHORS & REVIEWERS
  • RESOURCES
    • About BJGP Open
    • BJGP Open Accessibility Statement
    • Editorial Board
    • Editorial Fellowships
    • Audio Abstracts
    • eLetters
    • Alerts
    • BJGP Life
    • Research into Publication Science
    • Advertising
    • Contact
  • SPECIAL ISSUES
    • Artificial Intelligence in Primary Care: call for articles
    • Social Care Integration with Primary Care: call for articles
    • Special issue: Telehealth
    • Special issue: Race and Racism in Primary Care
    • Special issue: COVID-19 and Primary Care
    • Past research calls
    • Top 10 Research Articles of the Year
  • BJGP CONFERENCE →
Research

Faecal immunochemical test for suspected colorectal cancer symptoms: patient survey of usability and acceptability

Theo Georgiou Delisle, Nigel D'Souza, Bethan Davies, Sally Benton, Michelle Chen, Helen Ward and Muti Abulafi The NICE FIT Steering Committee
BJGP Open 2022; 6 (1): BJGPO.2021.0102. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3399/BJGPO.2021.0102
Theo Georgiou Delisle
1 Croydon University Hospital, London, UK
2 Imperial College London, London, UK
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • ORCID record for Theo Georgiou Delisle
Nigel D'Souza
1 Croydon University Hospital, London, UK
2 Imperial College London, London, UK
3 Basingstoke and North Hampshire Hospital, Basingstoke, UK
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Bethan Davies
2 Imperial College London, London, UK
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Sally Benton
4 Royal Surrey County Hospital, Guildford, UK
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Michelle Chen
5 RM Partners, The West London Cancer Alliance, London, UK
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Helen Ward
2 Imperial College London, London, UK
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Muti Abulafi
1 Croydon University Hospital, London, UK
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • ORCID record for Muti Abulafi
  • For correspondence: muti.abulafi@nhs.net
  • Article
  • Figures & Data
  • Info
  • eLetters
  • PDF
Loading

Abstract

Background Recent evidence suggests that the faecal immunochemical test (FIT) can rule out colorectal cancer (CRC) in symptomatic patients. To date, there is no research on usability and perception of FIT for these patients.

Aim To measure variation in attitudes and perception of FIT in patients with suspected CRC symptoms.

Design & setting A cross-sectional survey of a subset of participants of the NICE FIT study.

Method A questionnaire was co-developed with patients covering four themes on a Likert scale: FIT feasibility, faecal aversion, patient knowledge, and future intentions. Questionnaire and FIT kits were sent to patients with suspected CRC symptoms participating in the NICE FIT study. Logistic regression explored differences in patients’ test perception by ethnic group, language, age, location, deprivation, FIT use, and previous experience.

Results A total of 1151 questionnaires were analysed; 90.2% (95% confidence interval [CI] = 88.3% to 91.8%) of patients found faecal collection straightforward, 76.3% (95% CI = 73.7% to 78.6%) disagreed FIT was unhygienic, and 78.1% (95% CI = 75.6% to 80.4%) preferred FIT to colonoscopy. Preference for FIT over colonoscopy was weaker in patients aged 40–64 years than those >65 years (odds ratio [OR] 0.60; 95% CI = 0.43 to 0.84). Intention to use FIT again was stronger in patients who successfully used FIT than those unsuccessful (OR 11.08; 95% CI = 2.74 to 44.75), and white compared with non-white patients assessed (OR 3.20; 95% CI = 1.32 to 7.75).

Conclusion While most patients found FIT practical and hygienic, perception differences were found. Strategies to engage patients with more negative FIT perception should underpin symptomatic FIT pathways.

  • patients
  • colorectal neoplasms
  • colonoscopy
  • perception
  • faeces
  • general practice

How this fits in

This article is the first study to report on attitudes to FIT from patients who have personally experienced potential CRC symptoms and been offered FIT. Most symptomatic patients who responded found using FIT was acceptable and did not generate negative feelings of faecal aversion. However, perception differences were found between patient groups that should inform future FIT pathways in primary and secondary care to improve patient experience.

Introduction

FIT is a non-invasive, quantitative immunoassay that detects the globin moiety of haemoglobin in faeces (f-Hb). FIT is used in >25 bowel screening programmes worldwide.1 In 2017, NICE recommended FIT use in primary care to triage patients with low-risk symptoms for CRC before referral;2 however, this was not extended to include high-risk symptoms for CRC referred under the 2-week wait (2WW) pathway.3 There is mounting evidence of the high diagnostic accuracy of FIT in these patients4,5 and it is likely FIT will be introduced nationally to triage patients for referral. The need to streamline endoscopy services during the COVID-19 pandemic has further shifted emphasis towards using FIT to guide 2WW referrals.6

Research on patient acceptability and perception of faecal tests has focused on asymptomatic individuals in screening programmes.7–10 The main focus of these studies was to understand reasons for poor test uptake, which could affect the screening programme efficacy. However, although FIT uptake was high when used to prioritise investigation as part of a service evaluation of a patient referral pathway investigating worrying symptoms of suspected CRC,11 uptake was lower in research studies of patients with similar symptoms where FIT did not guide patient care.12,13 This indicates the need for better understanding of the variation of patient perception and attitudes to FIT when used in urgent referral pathways, to inform design of future pathways in primary and secondary care, and improve patient experience. The study focused on patients referred under the 2WW pathway with suspected CRC symptoms recruited into the NICE FIT study, a multicentre, double-blinded diagnostic accuracy study in 50 English NHS hospitals, which determined the sensitivity and specificity of FIT for CRC when compared with colonoscopy.12 The aim was to determine variation in attitudes, perception, and usability of FIT in these symptomatic patients.

Method

Questionnaire co-production with public and expert input

A literature review was carried out to develop a patient FIT questionnaire with input from a patient panel (Cancer Research UK) and the NICE FIT Steering Committee. Questionnaire items were drawn from previously published patient questionnaires (16 in total) relating to faecal tests; however, there was no single published validated questionnaire assessing all items that were used. Questionnaire format was a series of statements that participants could respond to using a 5-point Likert scale (strongly agree, agree, neither, disagree, strongly disagree). Twenty-one statements were generated covering four themes: feasibility of FIT, patient feelings of faecal aversion towards FIT, knowledge in relation to bowel cancer, and future test intentions. The questionnaire also collected demographic information and previous test experience. Questionnaire statements used in the study are shown in Table 1.

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup
Table 1. Questionnaire statement’s relationship to patient themes. Patients were asked to respond to each questionnaire statement on a 5-point Likert scale (strongly agree, agree, neither, disagree, strongly disagree).

Data collection

The questionnaire was disseminated to participating NHS hospital trusts across England as a substudy to the NICE FIT study, and 25 sites recruited patients between December 2018 and July 2019. Eligible patients were those referred from primary care with suspected CRC symptoms under the 2WW pathway, triaged for colonoscopy and who were able to complete and return the questionnaire. Questionnaire and instructions were in English. To recruit, patients who agreed to take part in the NICE FIT study were invited to take part in the substudy and were sent the questionnaire alongside a FIT kit, and asked to return it together with completed FIT in a prepaid envelope. All patients who returned the questionnaires were included in the study, irrespective of whether they returned the FIT kit for analysis or not. Patients who were not referred under the 2WW pathway or were not triaged to colonoscopy were not eligible.

Over 3000 questionnaire packs were sent out containing the FIT kit (HM-JACKarc, Kyowa [now Hitachi], Japan), test instructions, and questionnaire. Completed FIT kits and questionnaires were returned by post to the Bowel Cancer Screening Southern Programme Hub. Linked laboratory analysis of kits allowed a comparison of questionnaire responses with correct test use (a returned FIT that could be analysed to produce an f-Hb result). Study consent was through return of the questionnaire, as approved by the Confidentiality Advisory Group (CAG).

Analysis

Statistical analysis was performed using IBM SPSS Statistics (version 27). The questionnaire Likert scale responses are presented in full in Table 2, but then converted into binary responses for statistical analysis: positive (strongly agree, agree) and non-positive (neutral, disagree, strongly disagree). Covariates were categorised into binary variables (ethnic group: white or non-white; deprivation index: more deprived deciles 1–5 or less deprived deciles 6–10; sex: male or female; preferred language: English or other; location: London or outside of London; test used properly: yes or no; previous stool test experience: yes or no). Age was categorised by groups: 25–39, 40–64, and >65 years, with the older group used as the reference for comparison. Key dependent variable question responses included in this analysis were selected in collaboration with the NICE FIT Steering Committee with expert and public involvement (Cancer Research UK), as representative of questionnaire themes. Proportions are presented with 95% CIs calculated using the Public Health England tool.14 Binary logistic regression was used to explore demographic factors influencing patient responses.

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup
Table 2. Patient responses to questionnaire statements

Results

Patient responses

Packs with questionnaires were sent to 3760 patients taking part in the NICE FIT study; 1151 (30.6%) questionnaires were returned and analysed. Table 3 shows the questionnaire and FIT kit response rates from patients inside of London compared with those outside of London. A total of 1051 (91.3%) questionnaires were answered completely and the remaining 100 partially completed. Partially completed questionnaire responses were included in the study. Of the 1151 patients who returned questionnaires, 1142, (99.2%) also returned a FIT. There were nine patients who returned the questionnaire without returning the FIT kit. They were included in the analysis as they had the opportunity to physically examine the FIT kit, which was sent to them with the questionnaire. Of the 1142 patients who returned FIT for laboratory analysis with the questionnaire, 1126 (98.6%) produced a faecal sample that could be processed to give a f-Hb result.

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup
Table 3. Questionnaire response rates inside of London compared with outside of London

Patient characteristics

Demographics of responders are shown in Table 4. The mean age of responders was 65 years, 54.6% (n = 617) of patients were female, 88.0% (n = 985) from a white ethnic group, 94.9%% (n = 1072) preferred language was English, and 71.7% (n = 825) had previously used a ‘stool’ test.

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup
Table 4. Demographic characteristics of patients who responded to questionnaire

Characteristics of patients who did not respond to the questionnaire

Table 5 shows demographic information for responders and non-responders in London. Responders were slightly older than non-responders (mean age 64 years compared with 61 years), but no significant differences were found by sex or deprivation.

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup
Table 5. Comparison of demographic characteristics of responders and non-responders (London)

Feasibility of FIT

Over 90% of patients felt FIT was practical, agreeing that it was straightforward to collect the faecal sample (90.2%; 95% CI = 88.3% to 91.8%), the device was easy to open and close (95.9%; 95% CI = 94.6% to 96.9%), and the instructions were easy to understand (96.3%; 95% CI = 95.1% to 97.3%). In addition, 78.1% (95% CI = 75.6% to 80.4%) agreed that they would prefer FIT to colonoscopy, and 90.5% (95% CI = 88.6% to 92.0%) would prefer returning FIT through the post (Supplementary Figure S1, Table 2). Of the 9 patients in the study who did not return the FIT but responded to the questionnaire, 8 agreed it was straightforward to collect the faecal sample (88.9%).

FIT and faecal aversion

It was found 76.3% (95% CI = 73.7% to 78.6%) of patients disagreed using FIT was unhygienic, 77.0% (95% CI = 74.9% to 79.4%) disagreed it was difficult to overcome disgust related to stools, and 79.2% (95% CI = 76.7% to 81.4%) disagreed it was difficult to overcome embarrassment using FIT (Supplementary Figure S2, Table 2). 8 out of 9 patients (88.9%) who did not return FIT but responded to the questionnaire disagreed FIT was uhygienic.

Patient self-assessment of bowel cancer knowledge

Regarding bowel cancer knowledge, 78.0% (95% CI = 75.5% to 80.4%) of patients were worried about getting CRC (referred to as ’bowel cancer’ in questionnaire), 93.0% (95% CI = 91.4% to 94.4%) felt that there was a good chance of cure if detected early, and 75.1% (95% CI = 72.5% to 77.5%) felt that having a family history of CRC increased their risk (Supplementary Figure S3, Table 2).

Statements relating to future test intentions

On future test intentions, 97.3% (95% CI = 96.1% to 98.1%) of patients felt that the ability to detect cancer was important for them when deciding to use FIT. It was found 95.9% (95% CI = 94.9% to 96.9%) would use the test again and 98.2% (95% CI = 97.3% to 98.9%) understood what the test was being used for. In addition, 93.5% (95% CI = 91.9% to 94.8%) agreed with the statement 'I think about the future of my health and this influences my behaviour today' (Supplementary Figure S4, Table 2). 8 out of 9 patients (88.9%) who did not return FIT but responded to the questionnaire agreed they would use FIT again.

Analysis of responses in relation to covariates

Supplementary Table S1 shows ORs for key patient questionnaire responses using logistic regression and Table 6 shows patient numbers within variable groups. Significant differences in FIT perception were found. Patients who responded to the questionnaire and who returned a FIT that was successfully analysed to produce an f-Hb result, were four times more likely to find it straightforward to collect their stool sample (OR 4.29; 95% CI = 1.31 to 14.08) and four times more likely to prefer to use FIT rather than undergo a colonoscopy (OR 4.32; 95% CI = 1.49 to 12.52). Patients between 40 years and 64 years were less likely to find it straightforward to collect a stool sample than patients aged >65 years (OR 0.58; 95% CI = 0.36 to 0.93) and less likely to prefer FIT over colonoscopy (OR 0.60; 95% CI = 0.43 to 0.84). Patients in London were half as likely as those outside of London to prefer to use FIT than undergo colonoscopy (OR 0.50; 95% CI = 0.36 to 0.71). Willingness to use FIT in the future was stronger in patients who successfully used FIT (OR 11.08; 95% CI = 2.74 to 44.75), those from white compared with non-white backgrounds (OR 3.20; 95% CI = 1.32 to 7.75), and those with previous faecal test experience (OR 2.06; 95% CI = 1.03 to 4.13). No differences were seen in patients’ perception of FIT hygiene across groups. Patients from more deprived backgrounds were less likely to say that early detection of bowel cancer could be curative (OR 0.58; 95% CI = 0.35 to 0.98).

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup
Table 6. Numbers of patients within variable groups used in logistic regressiona

Discussion

Summary

To the authors’ knowledge, this is the first study to determine patient perception of FIT in patients with suspected CRC symptoms. In this study, FIT was acceptable to most symptomatic patients who responded; most patients who used FIT felt it was easy to find time to use it and it was hygienic. Despite this, differences in FIT perception were seen between groups; for example, age group differences were seen, with patients aged between 40 and 64 years less likely to find the test straightforward and less likely to prefer FIT over colonoscopy compared with those aged >65 years. The study found some variation by geography and ethnic groups; for example, willingness to use FIT again was stronger in patients from white compared with other non-white groups, and in those outside London. This did not appear to be based on differences in hygiene perception. Patients who used FIT correctly reported finding the test more straightforward than those who did not and were more likely to prefer FIT over colonoscopy.

Strengths and limitations

The study provides an insight into attitudes and perception of over 1000 symptomatic patients who had the opportunity to use FIT, a group whose views should be considered when designing and introducing new FIT pathways. To the authors’ knowledge, the only other study to address this issue was by von Wagner et al who asked public volunteers to imagine they had CRC symptoms, and found 70% would prefer FIT to colonoscopy if the risk of missing cancer was 1%.15 In the present study of truly symptomatic patients, 78.1% preferred FIT to colonoscopy.

The response rate to the survey was 30.6%, and consent to participation was through questionnaire return; those patients who did not return it were considered as not wishing to participate and were not contacted further. Characteristics of non-responders were only available for the London part of the sample owing to centralised recruitment in London; however, comparison of responders and non-responders showed only minor differences with responders being slightly older. There are many possible reasons for patients choosing not to participate, chief among them could be the voluntary nature of research studies. It would have been useful to include the views of those who did not respond, and this is the subject of a separate study being planned. Similarly, using NICE FIT infrastructure to rapidly disseminate questionnaire packs meant that questionnaires were only able to be sent in English and translation into more languages, which would have allowed a broader range of responses, could not be accommodated. Good acceptability in this study could be explained by different attitudes of the symptomatic population, who would be motivated to use tests to help diagnose their potential CRC symptoms, but also could be explained by those who participated being more likely to give a FIT sample. However, in the nine patients in the study who did not return the FIT sample but completed the questionnaire, eight out of nine patients agreed FIT was straightforward to use, was not unhygienic, and agreed they would use FIT again, consistent with overall study findings. Only a small number of patients, 15 (1.6%), were not able to use the FIT kit successfully and completed the questionnaire; therefore, ORs relating to this variable need to be interpreted with caution. In addition, only 5.4% of patients preferred a non-English language and 12.9% were from a non-white ethnic group.

Questionnaires were sent to patients as they were recruited to the NICE FIT study, therefore questions relating to investigation outcomes were not asked as some patients would not have diagnostic outcomes if they responded promptly. Further studies exploring how colorectal investigation outcomes affect FIT perception would be valuable. In addition, although all patients had urgent 2WW symptoms, the questionnaire did not categorise these symptoms further to determine if specific bowel symptoms affected FIT perception.

Comparison with existing literature

Negative feelings of faecal interaction are a recognised barrier to faecal tests offered as part of screening programmes in asymptomatic people;7 this is not necessarily transferable to testing in a diagnostic pathway. However, poor uptake has also been reported in symptomatic patients with chronic conditions, such as inflammatory bowel disease, who were asked to provide a stool sample for faecal calprotectin measurements to monitor disease.16 Hygiene concerns and embarrassment have previously been reported in patients asked to provide faecal samples by their GP.17 For this reason, it is important to better understand variation in attitudes to using FIT, patient experience of using FIT, and interaction with the faecal sample. The study has found that faecal aversion was not associated with FIT use by most symptomatic patients who responded.

Differences in perception of faecal tests between patient groups have previously been considered by Orbell et al, who suggest that some ethnic minorities may have lower perceived health vulnerability beliefs that may affect test uptake.18 While differences were not found in hygiene perception between patient groups, or by deprivation index decile, as might be expected from previous studies,19 intention to use FIT in the future was greater in those from white compared to other non-white groups. There is no clear explanation for preference for FIT over colonoscopy in older patients and further studies to explore this would be valuable. The study found that previous experience of any faecal test, as would be more likely in older patients, doubled patient intention to use FIT, underlining that faecal aversion was not a barrier to intention to use FIT again.

Implications for research and practice

This study highlights that there is variation in FIT perception between patients offered the test when experiencing suspected CRC symptoms. Incorrect FIT use affected preference for FIT over colonoscopy as an initial test, and addressing barriers to incorrect use, either owing to understanding or physical dexterity, is important at primary care and secondary care levels both to reduce the number of times the test is repeated to avoid diagnosis delay and to retain patient willingness to use FIT. Patient preference for postal test return rather than via primary care should be considered when designing FIT pathways to help deliver patient-centred care. At the same time, in developing these pathways one can be confident that most patients find FIT highly practical and acceptable. Further studies to determine patient decision-making behaviour, particularly in terms of CRC risk perception in relation to FIT result, in the context of FIT pathways, would be valuable. Qualitative studies assessing patient perception of FIT through interviews are also needed to gain greater depth of understanding of differences in patient responses to FIT.

In conclusion, patients presenting with suspected CRC symptoms who used FIT in this study found FIT practical, hygienic, and most would use it again. However, perception differences were seen in patient groups from ethnic minority backgrounds and older compared to younger patients.

Notes

Funding

This study was supported by Croydon University Hospital, RM Partners, and the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Imperial Biomedical Research Centre, with input from the Imperial Statistical Advisory Service in the design and conduct of the trial. Patients were recruited nationally through the NIHR Clinical Research Network, Principal Investigators, and R&D teams at each site. This study was funded by an NHS England award to RM Partners, the West London Cancer Alliance hosted by The Royal Marsden NHS Foundation Trust. This study was supported by the NIHR Clinical Research Network Portfolio. Alpha Labs Ltd. supported the study by providing FIT kits and reagents without charge. The Southern Bowel Cancer Screening Hub Research Team provided analytical expertise and advice, in addition to analysing samples. Helen Ward is a NIHR Senior Investigator and acknowledges support from NIHR Biomedical Research Centre of Imperial College NHS Trust, NIHR School of Public Health Research, NIHR Applied Research Collaborative North West London, and Wellcome Trust (reference: 205456/Z/16/Z). Theo Georgiou Delisle was funded by a fellowship awarded by RM Partners. Study funders had no role in study design; in the collection, analysis, and interpretation of data; in the writing of the report; and in the decision to submit the article for publication.

Ethical approval

The study was approved by the National Research Ethics Service Committee, London — South East (reference: 16/LO/2174, substantial amendment 4).

Provenance

Freely submitted; externally peer-reviewed.

Acknowledgements

The authors thank the patients from Cancer Research UK who contributed to questionnaire development and the patients who responded to the survey. The NICE FIT Steering Committee comprised: Oliver Warren (Chelsea and Westminster Hospital NHS Foundation Trust); Saidyousuf Ahmadi, Carlene Parchment, and Arun Shanmuganandan (Croydon University Hospital); Nicholas West (Epsom and St Helier University Hospitals); Toni Mitchell, Stephen Sah, and Nick Jackson (Hammersmith Medicines Research); Alistair Myers (Hillingdon Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust); Paul Ziprin (Imperial College Healthcare NHS Trust); Ian Bloom (Kingston Hospital NHS Foundation Trust); Stan Kaye (Royal Marsden Partners); Andy Ramwell (St George’s University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust); Kevin Monahan (West Middlesex University Hospital). Principal Investigators: Yuksel Gercek (Bedford Hospital NHS Trust); Mark Austin (Brighton and Sussex University Hospitals NHS Trust); Robin Gupta (Chesterfield Royal Hospital NHS Foundation Trust); Arun Shanmuganandan (Croydon Health Services NHS Trust); Matthew Tutton (East Suffolk and North Essex NHS Foundation Trust); Usman Khan (East Cheshire NHS Trust); Nicholas West (Epsom and St Helier University Hospitals NHS Trust); Mark Pugh (Isle of Wight NHS Trust); Roshan Lal (James Paget University Hospital); Ian Bloom (Kingston Hospital NHS Foundation Trust); Claire Coughlan (Lewisham and Greenwich NHS Trust); Mark Hill (Maidstone and Tunbridge Wells NHS Trust); Sarah Duff (Manchester University NHS Foundation Trust); Salim Kurrimboccus (Pennine Acute Hospitals NHS Trust, Royal Oldham Hospital, and North Manchester General Hospital); Jonathan Epstein (Pennine Acute Hospitals NHS Trust and Salford Royal NHS Foundation Trust); Joe Ellul (Princess Royal University Hospital); Graham Branagan (Salisbury NHS Foundation Trust); Andrew Ramwell (St. George’s University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust); Jervoise Andreyev (United Lincolnshire Hospitals NHS Trust and Lincoln County Hospital); Isobel Thomas (United Lincolnshire Hospitals NHS Trust, Pilgrim Hospital, and Grantham Hospital); Andrew Bateman (University Hospital Southampton NHS Foundation Trust); Kevin Monahan (West Middlesex University Hospital); and Naomi Mackenzie (Wrightington, Wigan and Leigh NHS Foundation Trust).

Competing interests

The authors declare that no competing interests exist.

The authors report no conflicts of interest in this work

Clinical Trial Registration

ISRCTN49676259

  • Received June 7, 2021.
  • Accepted September 17, 2021.
  • Copyright © 2022, The Authors

This article is Open Access: CC BY license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/)

References

  1. 1.↵
    1. Schreuders EH,
    2. Ruco A,
    3. Rabeneck L,
    4. et al.
    (2015) Colorectal cancer screening: a global overview of existing programmes. Gut 64(10):1637–1649, doi:10.1136/gutjnl-2014-309086, pmid:26041752.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  2. 2.↵
    1. National Institute for Health and Care Excellence
    (2017) Quantitative faecal immunochemical tests to guide referral for colorectal cancer in primary care. DG30. https://www.nice.org.uk/guidance/dg30/chapter/1-Recommendations. 18 Nov 2021.
  3. 3.↵
    1. National Institute for Health and Care Excellence
    (2021) Suspected cancer: recognition and referral. NG12. https://www.nice.org.uk/guidance/ng12. 18 Nov 2021.
  4. 4.↵
    1. Westwood M,
    2. Corro Ramos I,
    3. Lang S,
    4. et al.
    (2017) Faecal immunochemical tests to triage patients with lower abdominal symptoms for suspected colorectal cancer referrals in primary care: a systematic review and cost-effectiveness analysis. Health Technol Assess 21(33):1–234, doi:10.3310/hta21330, pmid:28643629.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  5. 5.↵
    1. Pin Vieito N,
    2. Zarraquiños S,
    3. Cubiella J
    (2019) High-risk symptoms and quantitative faecal immunochemical test accuracy: systematic review and meta-analysis. World J Gastroenterol 25(19):2383–2401, doi:10.3748/wjg.v25.i19.2383, pmid:31148909.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  6. 6.↵
    1. D'Souza N,
    2. Abulafi M
    (2020) Navigating the storm of COVID-19 for patients with suspected bowel cancer. Br J Surg 107(7):e204, doi:10.1002/bjs.11695, pmid:32400893.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  7. 7.↵
    1. Cole SR,
    2. Zajac I,
    3. Gregory T,
    4. et al.
    (2011) Psychosocial variables associated with colorectal cancer screening in South Australia. Int J Behav Med 18(4):302–309, doi:10.1007/s12529-010-9101-1, pmid:20496170.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  8. 8.
    1. von Wagner C,
    2. Good A,
    3. Smith SG,
    4. Wardle J
    (2012) Responses to procedural information about colorectal cancer screening using faecal occult blood testing: the role of consideration of future consequences. Health Expect 15(2):176–186, doi:10.1111/j.1369-7625.2011.00675.x, pmid:21501350.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  9. 9.
    1. Schwartz PH,
    2. Perkins SM,
    3. Schmidt KK,
    4. et al.
    (2017) Providing quantitative information and a Nudge to undergo stool testing in a colorectal cancer screening decision aid: a randomized clinical trial. Med Decis Making 37(6):688–702, doi:10.1177/0272989X17698678, pmid:28398836.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  10. 10.↵
    1. Levy BT,
    2. Daly JM,
    3. Xu Y,
    4. Ely JW
    (2012) Mailed fecal immunochemical tests plus educational materials to improve colon cancer screening rates in Iowa research network (IRENE) practices. J Am Board Fam Med 25(1):73–82, doi:10.3122/jabfm.2012.01.110055, pmid:22218627.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  11. 11.↵
    1. Chapman C,
    2. Bunce J,
    3. Oliver S,
    4. et al.
    (2019) Service evaluation of faecal immunochemical testing and anaemia for risk stratification in the 2-week-wait pathway for colorectal cancer. BJS Open 3(3):395–402, doi:10.1002/bjs5.50131, pmid:31183456.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  12. 12.↵
    1. D'Souza N,
    2. Georgiou Delisle T,
    3. Chen M,
    4. et al.
    (2021) Faecal immunochemical test is superior to symptoms in predicting pathology in patients with suspected colorectal cancer symptoms referred on a 2WW pathway: a diagnostic accuracy study. Gut 70(6):1130–1138, doi:10.1136/gutjnl-2020-321956, pmid:33087488.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  13. 13.↵
    1. Turvill JL,
    2. Turnock D,
    3. Cottingham D,
    4. et al.
    (2021) The fast track FIT study: diagnostic accuracy of faecal immunochemical test for haemoglobin in patients with suspected colorectal cancer. Br J Gen Pract 71(709):e643–e651, doi:10.3399/BJGP.2020.1098, pmid:33798091.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  14. 14.↵
    1. Public Health England
    Public Health Profiles. accessed. https://fingertips.phe.org.uk. 18 Nov 2021.
  15. 15.↵
    1. von Wagner C,
    2. Verstraete W,
    3. Hirst Y,
    4. et al.
    (2020) Public preferences for using quantitative faecal immunochemical test versus colonoscopy as diagnostic test for colorectal cancer: evidence from an online survey. BJGP Open 4(1):bjgpopen20X101007, doi:10.3399/bjgpopen20X101007, pmid:32019773.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  16. 16.↵
    1. Maréchal C,
    2. Aimone-Gastin I,
    3. Baumann C,
    4. et al.
    (2017) Compliance with the faecal calprotectin test in patients with inflammatory bowel disease. United European Gastroenterol J 5(5):702–707, doi:10.1177/2050640616686517, pmid:28815034.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  17. 17.↵
    1. Lecky DM,
    2. Hawking MKD,
    3. McNulty CAM,
    4. et al.
    (2014) Patients’ perspectives on providing a stool sample to their gp: a qualitative study. Br J Gen Pract 64 (628):e684–93, doi:10.3399/bjgp14X682261, pmid:25348992.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  18. 18.↵
    1. Orbell S,
    2. Szczepura A,
    3. Weller D,
    4. et al.
    (2017) South Asian ethnicity, socioeconomic status, and psychological mediators of faecal occult blood colorectal screening participation: a prospective test of a process model. Health Psychol 36(12):1161–1172, doi:10.1037/hea0000525, pmid:28726477.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  19. 19.↵
    1. Haas CB,
    2. Phipps AI,
    3. Hajat A,
    4. et al.
    (2019) Time to fecal immunochemical test completion for colorectal cancer screening. Am J Manag Care 25(4):174–180, pmid:30986014.
    OpenUrlPubMed
Back to top
Previous ArticleNext Article

In this issue

BJGP Open
Vol. 6, Issue 1
March 2022
  • Table of Contents
  • Index by author
Download PDF
Email Article

Thank you for recommending BJGP Open.

NOTE: We only request your email address so that the person to whom you are recommending the page knows that you wanted them to see it, and that it is not junk mail. We do not capture any email address.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
Faecal immunochemical test for suspected colorectal cancer symptoms: patient survey of usability and acceptability
(Your Name) has forwarded a page to you from BJGP Open
(Your Name) thought you would like to see this page from BJGP Open.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Citation Tools
Faecal immunochemical test for suspected colorectal cancer symptoms: patient survey of usability and acceptability
Theo Georgiou Delisle, Nigel D'Souza, Bethan Davies, Sally Benton, Michelle Chen, Helen Ward, Muti Abulafi
BJGP Open 2022; 6 (1): BJGPO.2021.0102. DOI: 10.3399/BJGPO.2021.0102

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
Share
Faecal immunochemical test for suspected colorectal cancer symptoms: patient survey of usability and acceptability
Theo Georgiou Delisle, Nigel D'Souza, Bethan Davies, Sally Benton, Michelle Chen, Helen Ward, Muti Abulafi
BJGP Open 2022; 6 (1): BJGPO.2021.0102. DOI: 10.3399/BJGPO.2021.0102
del.icio.us logo Facebook logo Mendeley logo
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like
  • Google Plus One
  • Mendeley logo Mendeley

Jump to section

  • Top
  • Article
    • Abstract
    • How this fits in
    • Introduction
    • Method
    • Results
    • Discussion
    • Notes
    • References
  • Figures & Data
  • Info
  • eLetters
  • PDF

Keywords

  • patients
  • colorectal neoplasms
  • colonoscopy
  • perception
  • faeces
  • general practice

More in this TOC Section

  • How does decontextualised risk information affect clinicians understanding of risk and uncertainty in primary care diagnosis? A qualitative study of clinical vignettes
  • Declining number of home visits to older adults by GPs: an observational study using data from electronic health records in The Netherlands, 2017–2023
  • What’s been tried: a curated catalogue of efforts to improve access to general practice
Show more Research

Related Articles

Cited By...

Intended for Healthcare Professionals

 
 

British Journal of General Practice

NAVIGATE

  • Home
  • Latest articles
  • Authors & reviewers
  • Accessibility statement

RCGP

  • British Journal of General Practice
  • BJGP for RCGP members
  • RCGP eLearning
  • InnovAiT Journal
  • Jobs and careers

MY ACCOUNT

  • RCGP members' login
  • Terms and conditions

NEWS AND UPDATES

  • About BJGP Open
  • Alerts
  • RSS feeds
  • Facebook
  • Twitter

AUTHORS & REVIEWERS

  • Submit an article
  • Writing for BJGP Open: research
  • Writing for BJGP Open: practice & policy
  • BJGP Open editorial process & policies
  • BJGP Open ethical guidelines
  • Peer review for BJGP Open

CUSTOMER SERVICES

  • Advertising
  • Open access licence

CONTRIBUTE

  • BJGP Life
  • eLetters
  • Feedback

CONTACT US

BJGP Open Journal Office
RCGP
30 Euston Square
London NW1 2FB
Tel: +44 (0)20 3188 7400
Email: bjgpopen@rcgp.org.uk

BJGP Open is an editorially-independent publication of the Royal College of General Practitioners

© 2025 BJGP Open

Online ISSN: 2398-3795