↓ Skip to main content

Attitudes towards the Faecal Occult Blood Test (FOBT) versus the Faecal Immunochemical Test (FIT) for colorectal cancer screening: perceived ease of completion and disgust

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Cancer, February 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (76th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (86th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
9 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
50 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
87 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
Attitudes towards the Faecal Occult Blood Test (FOBT) versus the Faecal Immunochemical Test (FIT) for colorectal cancer screening: perceived ease of completion and disgust
Published in
BMC Cancer, February 2016
DOI 10.1186/s12885-016-2133-4
Pubmed ID
Authors

Julie A. Chambers, Alana S. Callander, Rebecca Grangeret, Ronan E. O’Carroll

Abstract

Colorectal cancer screening is key to early detection and thus to early treatment, but uptake is often sub-optimal, particularly amongst lower income groups. It is proposed that the imminent introduction of the single-sample Faecal Immunochemical Test (FIT) in Scotland may lead to increased uptake as compared to the current Faecal Occult Blood Test (FOBT), but underlying reasons are yet to be determined. The aim was to evaluate attitudes and intentions towards completing the FIT compared to the current FOBT for colorectal cancer screening. A convenience sample of 200 adults (mean age 56.5, range 40-89; 59 % female) living in Scotland rated both the FOBT and the FIT with regard to ease of completion, perceived disgust and intention to complete and return (all measured on Likert-type 1-7 scale). Participants were randomised to be presented (via a face-to-face contact) with either the FIT or FOBT first. Participants reported higher intention to complete and return the FIT versus the FOBT (mean difference 0.62, 95 % CI (0.44, 0.79)). Overall, 85.0 % (n = 170) of participants agreed or strongly agreed that they would intend to complete and return the FIT compared to 65.5 % (n = 131) for the FOBT (χ(2) = 20.4, p < .001). The FIT was also perceived to be easier to complete (mean difference 0.85, 95 % CI (0.70, 1.01) and much less disgusting (mean difference 1.11, 95 % CI (0.94, 1.27)). Lower perceived disgust, higher socio-economic status and previous participation in any cancer screening were significant predictors of intention to complete the FOBT, whilst only higher perceived ease of completion predicted intention to complete the FIT. People reported higher intentions to complete and return a FIT than a FOBT test for colorectal cancer screening, largely due to a perception that it is easier and less disgusting to complete. The findings suggest that the introduction of the FIT as standard in the UK could result in a notable increase in screening uptake.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 9 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 87 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 87 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 14 16%
Researcher 11 13%
Student > Bachelor 10 11%
Student > Postgraduate 7 8%
Student > Ph. D. Student 6 7%
Other 13 15%
Unknown 26 30%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 29 33%
Psychology 7 8%
Nursing and Health Professions 6 7%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 5 6%
Social Sciences 4 5%
Other 8 9%
Unknown 28 32%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 6. 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 08 December 2016.
All research outputs
#6,152,697
of 24,464,848 outputs
Outputs from BMC Cancer
#1,508
of 8,684 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#96,615
of 410,369 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Cancer
#26
of 181 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,464,848 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 74th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 8,684 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.5. This one has done well, scoring higher than 82% of its peers.
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 410,369 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 76% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 181 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 86% of its contemporaries.