@article {von Wagnerbjgpopen20X101007, author = {Christian von Wagner and Wouter Verstraete and Yasemin Hirst and Brian D Nicholson and Sandro T Stoffel and Helga Laszlo}, title = {Public preferences for using quantitative faecal immunochemical test versus colonoscopy as diagnostic test for colorectal cancer: evidence from an online survey}, volume = {4}, number = {1}, elocation-id = {bjgpopen20X101007}, year = {2020}, doi = {10.3399/bjgpopen20X101007}, publisher = {Royal College of General Practitioners}, abstract = {Background There has been interest in using the non-invasive, home-based quantitative faecal immunochemical test (FIT) to rule out colorectal cancer (CRC) in high-risk symptomatic patients.Aim To elicit public preferences for FIT versus colonoscopy (CC) and its delivery in primary care.Design \& setting A cross-sectional online survey in England.Method A total of 1057 adults (without CRC symptoms and diagnosis) aged 40{\textendash}59 years were invited from an English online survey panel. Responders were asked to imagine they had been experiencing CRC symptoms that would qualify them for a diagnostic test. Participants were presented with choices between CC and FIT in ascending order of number of CRCs missed by FIT (from 1{\textendash}10\%). It was measured at what number of missed CRCs responders preferred CC over FIT.Results While 150 participants did not want either of the tests when both missed 1\% CRCs, the majority (n = 741, 70.0\%) preferred FIT to CC at that level of accuracy. However, this preference reduced to 427 (40.4\%) when FIT missed one additional cancer. Women were more likely to tolerate missing CRC when using FIT. Having lower numeracy and perceiving a higher level of risk meant participants were less likely to tolerate a false negative test. Most of those who chose FIT preferred to return it by mail (62.2\%), to be informed about normal test results by letter (42.1\%), and about abnormal test results face to face (32.5\%).Conclusion While the majority of participants preferred FIT over CC when both tests had the same sensitivity, tolerance for missed CRCs was low.}, URL = {https://bjgpopen.org/content/4/1/bjgpopen20X101007}, eprint = {https://bjgpopen.org/content/4/1/bjgpopen20X101007.full.pdf}, journal = {BJGP Open} }