↓ Skip to main content

Factors associated with use and non-use of the Fecal Immunochemical Test (FIT) kit for Colorectal Cancer Screening in Response to a 2012 outreach screening program: a survey study

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Public Health, June 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
41 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
60 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Factors associated with use and non-use of the Fecal Immunochemical Test (FIT) kit for Colorectal Cancer Screening in Response to a 2012 outreach screening program: a survey study
Published in
BMC Public Health, June 2015
DOI 10.1186/s12889-015-1908-x
Pubmed ID
Authors

Nancy P. Gordon, Beverly B. Green

Abstract

The one-sample fecal immunochemical test (FIT) is gaining popularity for colorectal cancer (CRC) screening of average-risk people. However, uptake and annual use remain suboptimal. In 2013, we mailed questionnaires to three groups of nonHispanic White, Black, and Latino Kaiser Permanente Northern California (KPNC) members ages 52-76 who received FIT kits in 2010-2012: Continuers did the FIT all 3 years; Converts in 2012, but not 2010 or 2011; and Nonusers in none of the 3 years. The questionnaires covered social influences, perceived CRC risk, reasons for using (Continuers, Converts) or avoiding using (Nonusers) the FIT, and recommendations for improving the kit. Continuers (n = 607, response rate 67.5 %), Converts (n = 317, response rate 35.6 %), and Nonusers (n = 215, response rate 21.1 %) did not differ in perceived risk or family history of CRC, but Nonusers were less likely than Continuers and Converts to know someone who had polyps or CRC. Continuers, Converts, and Nonusers did not differ in social network encouragement of CRC screening, but did differ in believing that it was very important that they be screened (88.3 %, 68.4 %, 47.7 %) and that their medical team thought it very important that they be screened (88.6 %, 79.9 %, 53.9 %). Approximately half of Continuers and Converts completed the FIT to please their doctor. Converts were less likely than Continuers to use the FIT to "make sure they were OK" (53.7 % vs. 72.6 %) or "protect their health" (46.1 % vs. 76.4 %). Nearly half of Converts completed the FIT out of guilt. Approximately half of FIT kit users suggested adding a disposable glove, extra paper, and wider-mouth tube to the kit. Nonusers' reasons for not using the FIT included discomfort, disgust, or embarrassment (59.6 %); thinking it unnecessary (32.9 %); fatalism/fear (15.5 %); and thinking it too difficult to use (14.5 %), but <10 % did not want CRC screening at all. Nonusers and irregular users of the FIT are less intrinsically motivated to get CRC screening than long-term users and more averse to preparing their stool sample. Changes to the FIT kit to address discomfort and difficulty factors might improve uptake and continued use.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 60 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Indonesia 1 2%
Unknown 59 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 11 18%
Student > Ph. D. Student 8 13%
Researcher 6 10%
Student > Bachelor 5 8%
Other 5 8%
Other 9 15%
Unknown 16 27%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 20 33%
Nursing and Health Professions 5 8%
Social Sciences 3 5%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 2 3%
Psychology 2 3%
Other 6 10%
Unknown 22 37%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 02 July 2015.
All research outputs
#16,754,422
of 25,623,883 outputs
Outputs from BMC Public Health
#12,920
of 17,731 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#157,653
of 281,291 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Public Health
#193
of 251 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,623,883 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 34th percentile – i.e., 34% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 17,731 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 14.5. This one is in the 26th percentile – i.e., 26% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 281,291 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 43rd percentile – i.e., 43% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 251 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.