Next Article in Journal
Nursing Students’ Retention of Knowledge by Basic Knowledge Type: An Exploratory Study
Previous Article in Journal
Nonverbal Oro-Motor Exercises: Do They Really Work for Phonoarticulatory Difficulties?
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
IJERPH
Volume 19
Issue 9
10.3390/ijerph19095460
ijerph-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Factors Associated with Colorectal Cancer Screening in Spain: Results of the 2017 National Health Survey

by
Rauf Nouni-García
1,
Ángela Lara-López
2,
Concepción Carratalá-Munuera
1,
Vicente F. Gil-Guillén
1,
Adriana López-Pineda
1,*,
Domingo Orozco-Beltrán
1 and
Jose A. Quesada
1
1
Department of Clinical Medicine, Miguel Hernández University, Ctra. Nnal. 332 Alicante-Valencia s/n, 03550 San Juan de Alicante, Spain
2
San Juan de Alicante Campus, Faculty of Medicine, Miguel Hernández University, 03202 San Juan de Alicante, Spain
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2022, 19(9), 5460; https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph19095460
Submission received: 3 April 2022 / Revised: 22 April 2022 / Accepted: 27 April 2022 / Published: 29 April 2022
Review Reports Versions Notes

Abstract

:
This study aimed to determine the CRC screening coverage of people aged between 50 and 69 years who were living in Spain in 2017 and describe the factors associated with not having had a faecal occult blood test (FOBT). A cross-sectional study was performed using data from the Spanish National Health Survey 2017. We analysed 7568 individuals between the ages of 50 and 69 years. The proportion of respondents between 50 and 69 years old who had had an FOBT was 29.0% (n = 2191). The three autonomous communities with the lowest proportion of respondents who had had an FOBT were Extremadura (8.7%, n = 16), Ceuta–Melilla (10.4%, n = 3), and Andalucia (14.1%, n = 186). The variables associated with not having had an FOBT were being 50–54 years old (PR = 1.09; 95% CI 1.04–1.14), having been born outside of Spain (PR = 1.11; 95% CI 1.06–1.16), not having been vaccinated against the flu (PR = 1.09; 95% CI 1.04–1.15), never having had a colonoscopy (PR = 1.49; 95% CI 1.40–1.59), not having had an ultrasound scan in the last year (PR = 1.09; 95% CI 1.04–1.14), and not having seen a primary care physician in the last month (PR = 1.08; 95% CI 1.04–1.12). The factors associated with not getting an FOBT were young age, having been born outside of Spain, not having been vaccinated against the flu in the last campaign, and not making frequent use of healthcare services.

1. Introduction

Colorectal cancer (CRC) is the third most common cancer worldwide in males and the second in females, according to the World Health Organization GLOBOCAN database, though the incidence and mortality rates are substantially higher in males than in females [1]. In Spain, CRC is currently the second most common cancer in both sexes, the leading cause of cancer death in women, and the second leading cause of cancer death in men [2].
The risk factors for CRC are being of older age, being overweight or obese, smoking, consuming alcohol, having a sedentary lifestyle, consuming ultra-processed meat, Lynch syndrome, hereditary polyposis syndromes, ulcerative colitis, Crohn’s disease, colon polyps (adenomas, serrated polyps), having a personal or family history of CRC, and abdominal radiation exposure [3,4,5,6]. On the other hand, a factor that is associated with a decreased risk of CRC is the combined use of aspirin and metformin, which have different preventive mechanisms and may benefit synergistically [7,8].
Initiatives for the early diagnosis of CRC date back to the 1930s in the USA [9]. Several researchers recommended implementing screening measures in the 1960s [10,11,12,13,14,15,16,17,18,19,20].
The early 1980s saw the introduction of the immunological faecal occult blood test (FOBT), which is based on the reaction of specific antibodies to human haemoglobin and requires no dietary or pharmacological restrictions [21,22,23]. In Spain, cancer screening began in the early 1990s and gradually extended, with levels of access varying between regions [24]. Research shows that patient-level barriers include socioeconomic, cultural, and psychosocial factors [25,26].
In view of the magnitude of the health problem of CRC, in 2003, the European Union urged member states to implement population-based screening programmes using FOBT for the early detection of CRC in men and women aged 50 to 74 years [27]. In 2004, the first clinical practice guidelines for CRC prevention were published in Spain [28], and in 2006, the Spanish Ministry of Health included in its published cancer strategy the objective of performing population-screening pilot studies with FOBT to establish the best method of implementing a population-based programme. One of the latest experiences that has been carried out is the colorectal exam at the Hospitalet de Llobregat’s pilot study of cancer screening, promoted by the Department of Health and Social Security of the Generalitat of Catalonia. This experience may provide information in the near future on the acceptability and feasibility of such programmes [29].
The 2009 update of the Spanish cancer strategy approved the launch of population-based programmes with the aim of achieving 50% coverage of the target population by 2015 [30]. However, a level of participation that is greater than 60% is required to achieve a cost-effective reduction in CRC mortality at the population level [31], and in 2021, the Spanish Ministry of Health raised its target to 65% coverage [32]. The increasing rates of CRC incidence and survival, as well as the high prevalence of known risk factors (inadequate diet, being overweight, having a sedentary lifestyle) and the availability of an effective diagnostic technique, highlight the need to extend population-based early detection programmes to achieve 100% coverage of the target population [33]. Health literacy (HL) has been investigated among the factors that could influence such participation [34].
Population-based screening has been shown to reduce the incidence of and mortality from CRC [2,35,36]. Strategies have been developed to improve the implementation of these prevention programmes, successfully increasing participation in CRC screening in Spain [37]. To ensure the implementation of screening programmes for CRC, The PRECEDE-PROCEED Model provides an excellent framework for health intervention programmes, especially in screening settings, and could improve our understanding of the relationship between variables such as knowledge and screening, highlighting the active role of patients [38].
Previous studies agree that the appropriate age to start screening is 50 years, since 90% of cases occur in people over this age [3,4]. The literature is less conclusive on the age at which screening should end and the best screening tests. In Spain, CRC screening is currently carried out in people aged between 50 and 69 years through a biennial immunological FOBT. People with a positive result have a colonoscopy under sedation. Any person who has already undergone a complete and high-quality colonoscopy with no significant findings is recommended to rejoin the screening programme after 10 years [5].
At present, screening coverage data are available for specific Spanish regions, but not for the whole country [39,40]. For this reason, we aimed to determine the CRC screening coverage of people aged between 50 and 69 years who were living in Spain in 2017 and to describe the factors associated with not having had an FOBT.

2. Materials and Methods

We performed a cross-sectional study using the Spanish National Health Survey 2017 (ENSE17) [41], carried out by the Spanish National Statistics Institute [42]. The ENSE17 data were collected through 23,089 computer-assisted, interviewer-administered, personal interviews that were carried out between October 2016 and October 2017 in 10,595 men and 12,494 women aged 15 years or older.
Our study included men and women aged between 50 and 69 years, who are considered the medium-risk population for CRC and are therefore eligible for stool occult blood testing, according to the 2016 Programme of Prevention and Health Promotion (PAPPS) [43]. Respondents with missing data were excluded.
The dependent variable of our study was whether or not respondents had had an FOBT. This information was collected through question 95 of module Q of the ENSE17, regarding preventive practices: “Have you ever had a faecal occult blood test?”, to which respondents could answer “Yes”, “No”, or “Don’t know/no answer” (DN/NA).
The explanatory variables were divided into four modules. Sociodemographic variables were age, sex, body mass index (underweight/normal, overweight, obese, DK/NA), country of birth (Spain, outside Spain), Spanish autonomous community of residence, marital status (single, married, widowed, separated, divorced), socio-occupational class (manager with 10 or more employees, manager with fewer than 10 employees, intermediate occupation or own-account worker, skilled technical occupation, skilled primary sector worker, nonskilled worker, DK/NA), and educational attainment (illiterate, incomplete primary education, primary education, compulsory secondary education, upper secondary education, intermediate vocational training, higher vocational training, university education). Health determinants were main daily activity (mostly sitting, mostly standing, walking with some weight, manual labour, not applicable), physical activity in free time (none, occasional, several times a month, several times a week), consumption of fruit and vegetables (neither fruit nor vegetables every day, fruit or vegetables every day, fruit and vegetables every day), smoking (daily smoker, nondaily smoker, ex-smoker, non-smoker), and alcohol consumption (5–6 days/week, 3–4 days/week, 1–2 days/week, 2–3 days/month, once a month, less than once a month, never in the last 12 months, never). Healthcare variables included use of healthcare services (hospital admissions and emergency department visits in the last year, primary care visits in the last month) and specific preventive or diagnostic procedures (flu vaccination in the last campaign; colonoscopy ever; blood/urine tests, X-ray, computed tomography scan, ultrasound, magnetic resonance imaging in the last year). Finally, the health status module included variables related to self-perceived health (very good, good, fair, poor, very poor) and comorbidities (diabetes mellitus, high blood pressure).

Statistical Analysis

We performed a descriptive analysis of all variables by calculating absolute frequencies and percentages. To identify the factors associated with having had an FOBT, we prepared contingency tables and applied the Chi-squared test. To estimate the magnitudes of the associations of different variables with not having had an FOBT, we fitted Poisson multivariable models with robust variance (Petersen 2008) [44]. Prevalence ratios (PRs) were calculated with their 95% confidence intervals (95% CIs). We used a stepwise variable selection procedure based on the Akaike Information Criterion, taking into account the possible multicollinearity of the variables. Goodness-of-fit and classification indicators such as the area under the receiver operating characteristics curve (AUC) were calculated. For the statistical analysis, we used the software environment R version 3.0.2 ( R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Viena, Austria).

3. Results

We analysed a total of 7568 individuals aged between 50 and 69 years, of whom 51.0% (n = 3858) were women, 20.9% (n = 1582) were obese, 30.7% (n = 2326) had only primary education or less, 23.8% (n = 1805) were daily smokers, 24.1% (n = 1822) consumed alcohol every day, 18.6% (n = 1404) did not eat fruit or vegetables every day, 35.8% (n = 2713) performed no leisure physical activity, 10.7% (n = 811) had diabetes, and 32.1% (n = 2433) had high blood pressure. Table 1 and Supplementary Table S1 show the characteristics of the study population according to whether or not they had ever had an FOBT. The proportion of respondents between 50 and 69 years old who had had an FOBT at some point in their lives was 29.0% (n = 2191).
The three autonomous communities with the highest proportion of respondents who had had an FOBT were the Basque Country (72.3%, n = 280), Navarre (60.5%, n = 65), and Castile–León (49.1%, n = 214), while those with the lowest proportions were Extremadura (8.7%, n = 16), Ceuta–Melilla (10.4%, n = 3), and Andalusia (14.1%, n = 186). The bivariate analysis showed a lower probability of having had an FOBT in respondents aged 50–54 years (22.2%, n = 526) versus older respondents, in people born outside Spain (18.5%, n = 134) versus those born in Spain, in illiterate people (18.2%, n= 16) versus those with higher educational attainment, in daily smokers (24.0%, n= 433), in people who did not consume fruit or vegetables every day (23.1%, n = 325), in those with very good self-perceived health (24.5%, n = 234), and generally in those who made less use of healthcare services (Table 1 and Table S1).
Table 2 shows the results of the multivariable analysis. Regarding autonomous community of residence, the highest values of independent association with not having had an FOBT were recorded in Extremadura (PR = 3.04, 95% CI 2.58–3.58), Ceuta–Melilla (PR = 3.00, 95% CI 2.53–3.57), and Asturias (PR = 2.99, 95% CI (2.54–3.53). Of the analysed variables, those independently associated with not having had an FOBT were being 50–54 years old (PR = 1.09; 95% CI 1.04–1.14), being born outside of Spain (PR = 1.11; 95% CI 1.06–1.16), not having been vaccinated against flu (PR = 1.09; 95% CI 1.04–1.15), never having had a colonoscopy (PR = 1.49; 95% CI 1.40–1.59), not having had an ultrasound scan in the last year (PR = 1.09; 95% CI 1.04–1.14), and not having seen a primary care physician in the last month (PR= 1.08; 95% CI 1.04–1.12). The model fits the data well (likelihood ratio Chi2 = 476, p < 0,001; AUC 0.781).

4. Discussion

The results of this study show that the CRC screening coverage of the Spanish population aged 50 to 69 years was 29% in 2017. The factors independently associated with not having had an FOBT were the respondents’ autonomous community of residence, age, and country of birth, as well as whether the respondent had been vaccinated against the flu in the last campaign, had ever undergone a colonoscopy, had had an ultrasound scan in the last year, or had seen their primary care physician in the last month.
According to our findings, the prevalence of participation in CRC screening in Spain in 2017 was far from the objective of 65% proposed in the last update of the Spanish Health Ministry’s cancer strategy [32]. For programmes to be considered effective, the European guidelines for the quality assurance of CRC screening and diagnosis recommend participation rates above 65% and specify a minimum acceptable level of 45% [45]. The participation rates for CRC screening programmes in European Union member states range from 7.2% to 90.1%, with considerable variability between countries [46].
While previous studies in the Spanish population found that women were more likely to participate in CRC cancer screening programmes [24,47,48,49,50], sex was not associated with having had an FOBT in our study. Regarding country of birth, we found that non-participation in the screening programme was associated with being born outside of Spain, which is in line with the findings reported by Rosano et al. in 2017 [51]. With respect to age, lower participation in screening was associated with being aged 50–59 years versus 60–69 years, as in previous studies that found a positive association between participation and age [48,49,51]. In contrast, the reported CRC screening coverage in Belgium in 2017 was 30% in people aged 55 to 59 years, 26.6% between 60 and 64 years, 25.1% between 65 and 69 years, and 52.6% between 70 and 74 years [52], with the highest values found in the youngest and oldest people. In younger people, feeling healthy and less vulnerable to disease could be a barrier to participation [49].
We found a lower coverage in smokers, like other authors [53,54], and in people who did not eat fruit or vegetables every day. This could be because these groups are generally less concerned about their health and therefore tend to participate less in preventive health programmes.
Concerning the use of healthcare services, lower screening coverage was associated with not having been vaccinated against flu in the last campaign, never having had a colonoscopy, not having had an ultrasound scan in the last year, and not having visited a primary care physician in the last month. These data could indicate that people who have less contact with healthcare professionals participate less in screening programmes, and that receiving information on screening from a primary care physician encourages participation. This highlights the important influence of primary care on adherence to screening programmes, as shown in other studies [53,55,56,57]. The factor of not accessing preventive services within the stipulated period of time is associated with low participation in screening programmes, since it is correlated with the individual perception of health.
HL has been proposed as a predictor of an individual’s health status [58]. It can be defined as “people’s ability to make judgements and take decisions in everyday life concerning healthcare, disease prevention, and health promotion to maintain or improve their quality of life” [59]. For this reason, low levels of HL have been associated with several adverse health outcomes, such as increased hospitalization, higher rates of medication nonadherence, and lower uptake of preventive interventions, including cancer screening programmes [34].
We found no association between not having had an FOBT and having chronic diseases such as diabetes, high blood pressure, or obesity, whereas previous studies have found that people with chronic diseases are more adherent to CRC screening programmes [60,61].
Regarding socio-occupational class, the multivariable analysis in our study found no independent association with failure to have an FOBT. In contrast, a previous study carried out in Barcelona (Spain) concluded that the most and the least disadvantaged groups were less likely to participate in CRC screening programmes, possibly due to a lack of knowledge and understanding in the case of the first group and, in the case of the last group, because they have access to private healthcare [62].
In our study, we found varying coverage among the different autonomous communities. The uneven implementation of screening across the country is due to the fact that each autonomous community has a regional government that independently manages its own healthcare system, including preventive activities [63]. The strategies implemented in the autonomous communities with higher coverage include those aimed at improving healthcare access among vulnerable people, identifying the barriers to and facilitators of participation in screening, and reducing inequalities in participation. The associated activities include holding meetings with political leaders of the autonomous communities; sending information to be distributed throughout the municipalities in collaboration with city councils; sending tests to homes and enabling participants to submit samples in all primary care centres; sending tests to care homes; conducting cross-sectional analyses of participants and non-participants to identify their profiles and thus develop specific strategies to increase uptake; increasing participation through informative talks in the press and on the radio; implementing the practice of reminder calls from medical and/or nursing staff; holding talks in collaboration with the Spanish Association Against Cancer (AECC); and ensuring that in all primary care centres, people eligible for screening are educated about its importance before being invited for the test [24,47,49,55,64]. In the autonomous communities with lower participation, these activities are only partially implemented, if at all.
The present study can be included in the above-mentioned strategies, as we aimed to identify the factors associated with failure to have an FOBT and thus understand how to increase coverage in the Spanish population. The autonomous communities with lower participation in the screening programme could try to increase uptake by adopting the most effective strategies applied in the autonomous communities with higher participation. As the characteristics linked to not having had an FOBT in our study were being young and not making frequent use of healthcare services, the use of alternative channels to disseminate information about CRC screening programmes could help to raise awareness of their importance. We were unable to assess the reasons for non-participation or the medical histories of people who chose not to participate; this information could be useful for future surveys.
Our study has some limitations. Firstly, because this is a cross-sectional study, we were unable to establish a causal relationship between screening and the variables studied. Secondly, the fact that our results are based on self-reported data collected through a survey means they may be subject to recall bias. However, self-reported chronic diseases have been considered a useful source of information for prevalence studies and have been validated by different studies [65]. One strength of our study is that our source of data–the ENSE17–is administered in all autonomous communities and is one of the largest data-collection programmes of the Spanish Ministry of Health. The results of this national survey have been validated and are considered an essential element of territorial cohesion for population monitoring.

5. Conclusions

According to the data of the 2017 ENSE, the coverage of CRC screening in the Spanish population aged 50 to 69 years was low and varied among the different autonomous communities. The factors associated with failure to have an FOBT were young age, having been born outside of Spain, not having been vaccinated against the flu in the last campaign, and not making frequent use of healthcare services.

Supplementary Materials

The following supporting information can be downloaded at: https://www.mdpi.com/article/10.3390/ijerph19095460/s1, Table S1: Absolute and relative frequencies of respondents who had/had not had a faecal occult blood test (FOBT) according to all explanatory variables.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, C.C.-M. and Á.L.-L.; Methodology, R.N.-G., A.L.-P., V.F.G.-G. and D.O.-B.; Software, J.A.Q.; Validation, A.L.-P., Á.L.-L. and D.O.-B.; Formal Analysis, J.A.Q.; Investigation, A.L.-P., R.N.-G., C.C.-M. and Á.L.-L.; Resources, C.C.-M. and Á.L.-L.; Data Curation, J.A.Q.; Writing—Original Draft Preparation, R.N.-G., A.L.-P. and Á.L.-L.; Writing—Review and Editing, C.C.-M., D.O.-B., V.F.G.-G. and J.A.Q.; Visualization, Á.L.-L., R.N.-G. and V.F.G.-G.; Supervision, C.C.-M.; Project Administration, C.C.-M. and D.O.-B.; Funding Acquisition, C.C.-M. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research was funded by Universidad Miguel Hernández de Elche.

Institutional Review Board Statement

The study was conducted according to the guidelines of the Declaration of Helsinki. This study was exempt from ethics review because there were no human participants and only sources of data were used.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

All the data used for this analysis can be confirmed at any time.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Cancer over Time. Iarc.fr. Available online: https://gco.iarc.fr/overtime/en/dataviz/trends?populations=75200&sexes=1&types=0&multiple_populations=0&mode=cancer&multiple_cancers=1&key=crude_rate&cancers=106 (accessed on 19 April 2022).
  2. Marzo-Castillejo, M.; Vela-Vallespín, C.; Bellas-Beceiro, B.; Bartolomé-Moreno, C.; Ginés-Díaz, Y.; Melús-Palazón, E. Grupos de Expertos de Cáncer del PAPPS. Recomendaciones de Prevención del Cáncer. Actualización PAPPS 2020 [PAPPS Cancer Expert Group. Cancer Prevention Recommendations. 2020 PAPPS update]. Aten Primaria 2020, 52 (Suppl. 2), 44–69. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Simon, K. Colorectal cancer development and advances in screening. Clin. Interv. Aging. 2016, 11, 967. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  4. Colorectal Cancer Risk Factors. Cáncer.org. Available online: https://www.cancer.org/es/cancer/cancer-de-colon-o-recto/causas-riesgos-prevencion/factores-de-riesgo.html (accessed on 5 August 2021).
  5. Cubiella, J.; Marzo-Castillejo, M.; Mascort-Roca, J.J.; Amador-Romero, F.J.; Bellas-Beceiro, B.; Clofent-Vilaplana, J.; Carballal, S.; Ferrándiz-Santos, J.; Gimeno-García, A.Z.; Jover, R.; et al. Spanish Society of Family and Community Medicine and Spanish Association of Gastroenterology. Clinical practice guideline. Diagnosis and prevention of colorectal cancer. 2018 Update. Gastroenterol. Hepatol. 2018, 41, 585–596. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Macrae, F.A.; Goldberg, R.M.; Seres, D.; Savarese, D. Colorectal Cancer: Epidemiology, Risk Factors and Protective Factors. UptoDate [Internet]. 2020. Available online: https://www-uptodate-com.publicaciones.umh.es/contents/colorectal-cancer-epidemiology-risk-factors-and-protective-factors (accessed on 22 March 2020).
  7. Chan, A.T. Metformin for Cancer Prevention: A Reason for Optimism. Lancet Oncol. 2016, 17, 407–409. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Umezawa, S.; Higurashi, T.; Komiya, Y.; Arimoto, J.; Horita, N.; Kaneko, T.; Iwasaki, M.; Nakagama, H.; Nakajima, A. Chemoprevention of colorectal cancer: Past, present, and future. Cancer Sci. 2019, 110, 3018–3026. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  9. Levin, M.L. Discovery and examinations of screening for cancer. In Preventive Medicine; Hilleboe, H.E., Larimore, G.W., Eds.; Editorial Interamericana: Mexico City, Mexico, 1962; pp. 339–350. [Google Scholar]
  10. Lehman, E.P. What the Nonspecialist Should Know about Cancer of the Rectum. CA A Cancer J. Clin. 1951, 1, 79–83. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. State, D. Diagnosis of gastrointestinal cancer in the office of the general practitioner. CA A Cancer J Clin. 1951, 1, 120–122. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Hertz, E.; Deddish, M.R. Progress in Cancer Detection: II. Cancer Prevention and Detection in the Anus, Rectum and Colon. CA A Cancer J. Clin. 1958, 8, 197–200. [Google Scholar]
  13. Day, E. The cancer detection examination. CA A Cancer J. Clin. 1961, 11, 103–106. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Clark, T.W.; Schor, S.S.; Elsom, K.O.; Hubbard, J.P. The periodic health examination: Evaluation of routine tests and procedures. Ann. Intern. Med. 1961, 54, 1209–1222. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Gilbertsen, V.A.; Wangensteen, O.H. The results of efforts for asymptomatic diagnosis of cancer. CA A Cancer J. Clin. 1964, 14, 155–157. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Illingworth, D.G. The choice of occult blood test in general practice. J. Coll. Gen. Pract. 1965, 9, 33–44. [Google Scholar]
  17. Eger, S.A. Early Diagnosis in Colon and Rectal Cancer. CA A Cancer J. Clin. 1965, 15, 275–277. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Greegor, D.H. Detection of Silent Colon Cancer in Routine Examination. CA A Cancer J. Clin. 1969, 19, 330–337. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Greegor, D.H. Detection of Colorectal Cancer Using Guaiac Slides. CA A Cancer J. Clin. 1972, 22, 360–363. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Bolt, R.J. Sigmoidoscopy in detection and diagnosis in the asymptomatic individual. Cancer 1971, 28, 121–122. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Kristein, M.M. Part C: Medical Economics. Social Sci. Med. 1980, 14, 275–284. [Google Scholar]
  22. Turunen, M.J.; Liewendahl, K.; Partanen, P.; Adlercreutz, H. Immunological detection of faecal occult blood in colorectal cancer. Br. J. Cancer 1984, 49, 141–148. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  23. Armitage, N.; Hardcastle, J.D.; Amar, S.S.; Balfour, T.W.; Haynes, J.; James, P.D. A comparison of an immunological faecal occult blood test Fecatwin sensitive/FECA EIA with Haemoccult in population screening for colorectal cancer. Br. J. Cancer 1985, 51, 799–804. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  24. Molina-Barceló, A.; Moreno Salas, J.; Peiró-Pérez, R.; Arroyo, G.; Ibáñez Cabanell, J.; Vanaclocha Espí, M.; Binefa, G.; García, M.; Salas Trejo, D. Desigualdades de acceso a los programas de cribado del cáncer en España y cómo reducirlas: Datos de 2013 y 2020. Rev Esp Salud Publica. 2021, 95, e202101017. [Google Scholar]
  25. White, A.; Sabatino, S.A.; Vinson, C.; Chambers, D.; White, M.C. The Cancer Prevention and Control Research Network (CPCRN): Advancing public health and implementation science. Prev Med. 2019, 129S, 105824. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  26. Curry, S.J.; Byers, T.; Hewitt, M. Fulfilling the Potential of Cancer Prevention and Early Detection; National Academy Press: Washington, DC, USA, 2003. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Council recommendation of 2 December 2003 of cancer screening. Off. J. Eur. Union 2003, 327, 34–38.
  28. Castells, A.; Marzo, M.; Bellas, B.; Amador, F.J.; Lanas, A.; Mascort, J.J.; Ferrándiz, J.; Alonso, P.; Piñol, V.; Fernández, M.; et al. Guía clínica de prevención del cáncer colorrectal. Gastroenterol. Hepatol. 2004, 27, 573–634. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  29. Cancer Strategy of the National Health System. Ministry of Health. 2006. Available online: https://www.sanidad.gob.es/eu/organizacion/sns/planCalidadSNS/pdf/excelencia/cancer-cardiopatia/CANCER/opsc_est1.pdf.pdf (accessed on 1 November 2018).
  30. Cancer Strategy of the National Health System. Ministry of Health and Social Policy. 2010. Available online: https://www.mscbs.gob.es/organizacion/sns/planCalidadSNS/pdf/ActualizacionEstrategiaCancer.pdf (accessed on 2 November 2018).
  31. Knudsen, A.B.; Zauber, A.G.; Rutter, C.M.; Naber, S.K.; Doria-Rose, V.P.; Pabiniak, C.; Johanson, C.; Fischer, S.E.; Lansdorp-Vogelaar, I.; Kuntz, K.M. Estimation of Benefits, Burden, and Harms of Colorectal Cancer Screening Strategies: Modeling Study for the US Preventive Services Task Force. JAMA 2016, 315, 2595–2609. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Cancer Strategy of the National Health System. Ministry of Health. 2021. Available online: https://www.mscbs.gob.es/organizacion/sns/planCalidadSNS/pdf/Estrategia_en_cancer_del_Sistema_Nacional_de_Salud_Actualizacion_2021.pdf (accessed on 6 August 2021).
  33. Galceran, J.; Ameijide, A.; Carulla, M. Estimates of the Incidence and Survival of Cancer in Spain and Its Situation in Europe. Available online: https://redecan.org/redecan.org/es/444_Estimaciones_Incidencia_y_Supervi_Cancer_en_Espa_na_2014_DEF_DEF3a26.pdf?file=257&area=196 (accessed on 4 August 2018).
  34. Baccolini, V.; Isonne, C.; Salerno, C.; Giffi, M.; Migliara, G.; Mazzalai, E.; Turatto, F.; Sinopoli, A.; Rosso, A.; De Vito, C.; et al. The association between adherence to cancer screening programs and health literacy: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Prev. Med. 2021, 155, 106927. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Fitzpatrick-Lewis, D.; Ali, M.U.; Warren, R.; Kenny, M.; Sherifali, D.; Raina, P. Screening for Colorectal Cancer: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Clin Colorectal Cancer. 2016, 15, 298–313. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Lin, J.S.; Piper, M.A.; Perdue, L.A.; Rutter, C.M.; Webber, E.M.; O’Connor, E.; Smith, N.; Whitlock, E.P. Screening for Colorectal Cancer: Updated Evidence Report and Systematic Review for the US Preventive Services Task Force. JAMA. 2016, 315, 2576–2594, Erratum in: JAMA 2016, 316, 545; discussion 1412. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  37. Spanish Group of Cancer Screening Programmes. [Red de Programas de Cribado de Cáncer]. Available online: http://www.cribadocancer.es/index.php (accessed on 22 February 2022).
  38. Saulle, R.; Sinopoli, A.; Baer, A.D.P.; Mannocci, A.; Marino, M.; De Belvis, A.G.; Federici, A.; La Torre, G. The PRECEDE-PROCEED model as a tool in Public Health screening: A systematic review. Clin. Ter. 2020, 171, e167–e177. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Solís-Ibinagagoitia, M.; Unanue-Arza, S.; Díaz-Seoane, M.; Martínez-Indart, L.; Lebeña-Maluf, A.; Idigoras, I.; Bilbao, I.; Portillo, I. Factors Related to Non-participation in the Basque Country Colorectal Cancer Screening Programme. Front Public Health 2020, 8, 604385. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Málaga López, A.; Salas Trejo, D.; Sala Felis, T.; Ponce Romero, M.; Goicoechea Sáez, M.; Andrés Martínez, M.; Llorens Ivorra, C.; González Serrano, I. Grupo Cribado de Cáncer Colorrectal de la Comunidad Valenciana. Programa de cribado de cáncer colorrectal de la comunidad valenciana: Resultados de la primera ronda: 2005–2008. Rev. Esp. Salud Publica 2010, 84, 731–743. [Google Scholar]
  41. National Health Survey of Spain. 2017. Available online: https://www.mscbs.gob.es/estadEstudios/estadisticas/encuestaNacional/encuesta2017.htm (accessed on 6 August 2018).
  42. National Statistics Institute. Madrid: INE. 2016. Available online: https://www.ine.es (accessed on 21 November 2017).
  43. Marzo-Castillejo, M.; Bellas-Beceiro, B.; Vela-Vallespín, C.; Nuin-Villanueva, M.; Bartolomé-Moreno, C.; Melús-Palazón, E.; Vilarrubí-Estrella, M. Cancer prevention recommendations. Update 2016. Prim. Care. 2016, 48 (Suppl. 1), 39–59. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  44. Petersen, M.R.; Deddens, J.A. A comparison of two methods for estimating prevalence ratios. BMC Med. Res. Methodol. 2008, 8, 9. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  45. Segnan, N.; Patnick, J.; von Karsa, L. (Eds.) (First Edition), European Commission, Publications Office of the European Union. 2010. Available online: https://op.europa.eu/es/publication-detail/-/publication/e1ef52d8-8786-4ac4-9f91-4da2261ee535 (accessed on 5 August 2018).
  46. Gimeno García, A.Z. Factors influencing colorectal cancer screening participation. Gastroenterol. Res. Pract. 2012, 2012, 483417. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  47. Vanaclocha-Espi, M.; Ibáñez, J.; Molina-Barceló, A.; Pérez, E.; Nolasco, A.; Font, R.; Pérez-Riquelme, F.; de la Vega, M.; Arana-Arri, E.; Oceja, M.; et al. Factors influencing participation in colorectal cancer screening programs in Spain. Prev. Med. 2017, 105, 190–196. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  48. Portillo, I.; Arana-Arri, E.; Gutierrez-Ibarluzea, I.; Bilbao, I.; Hurtado, J.L.; Sarasqueta, C.; Idigoras, I.; Anda, J.J.A.; De No, C.; Enciso, C.; et al. Factors related to the participation and detection of lesions in colorectal cancer screening programme-based faecal immunochemical test. Eur. J. Public Health 2018, 28, 1143–1148. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Hurtado, J.L.; Bacigalupe, A.; Calvo, M.; Esnaola, S.; Mendizabal, N.; Portillo, I.; Idigoras, I.; Millán, E.; Arana-Arri, E. Social inequalities in a population based colorectal cancer screening programme in the Basque Country. BMC Public Health 2015, 15, 1021. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  50. Binefa, G.; Garcia, M.; Milà, N.; Fernández, E.; Rodríguez-Moranta, F.; Gonzalo, N.; Benito, L.; Clopés, A.; Guardiola, J.; Moreno, V. Colorectal Cancer Screening Programme in Spain: Results of Key Performance Indicators After Five Rounds (2000–2012). Sci. Rep. 2016, 6, 19532. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Rosano, A.; Dauvrin, M.; Buttigieg, S.C.; Ronda, E.; Tafforeau, J.; Dias, S. Migrant’s access to preventive health services in five EU countries. BMC Health Serv. Res. 2017, 17, 588. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  52. Tran, T.; Van Hal, G.; Peeters, M.; Jidkova, S.; De Schutter, H.; Hoeck, S. Population-Based Data Reveal Factors Associated with Organised and Non-Organised Colorectal Cancer Screening: An Important Step towards Improving Coverage. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2021, 18, 8373. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Unanue-Arza, S.; Solís-Ibinagagoitia, M.; Díaz-Seoane, M.; Mosquera-Metcalfe, I.; Idigoras, I.; Bilbao, I.; Portillo, I. Inequalities and risk factors related to non-participation in colorectal cancer screening programmes: A systematic review. Eur. J. Public Health 2020, 31, 346–355. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Guiriguet, C.; Pera, G.; Castells, A.; Toran, P.; Grau, J.; Rivero, I.; Buron, A.; Macià, F.; Vela-Vallespin, C.; Vilarrubí-Estrella, M.; et al. Impact of comorbid conditions on participation in an organised colorectal cancer screening programme: A cross-sectional study. BMC Cancer 2017, 17, 524. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Molina-Barceló, A.; Peiró-Pérez, R.; Vanaclocha, M.; Vallés, G.; Guaita, L.; Salas, D. Informed participation in the Valencian Community Colorectal Cancer Screening Programme from a gender perspective. Gac. Sanit. 2018, 32, 72–76. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  56. Benito, L.; Farre, A.; Binefa, G.; Vidal, C.; Cardona, A.; Pla, M.; García, M. Factors related to longitudinal adherence in colorectal cancer screening: Qualitative research findings. Cancer Causes Control. 2017, 29, 103–114. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  57. McGregor, S.E.; Hilsden, R.J.; Li, F.X.; Bryant, H.E.; Murray, A. Low Uptake of Colorectal Cancer Screening 3 Yr After Release of National Recommendations for Screening. Am. J. Gastroenterol. 2007, 102, 1727–1735. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Stormacq, C.; Van den Broucke, S.; Wosinski, J. Does health literacy mediate the relationship between socioeconomic status and health disparities? Integrative review. Health Promot. Int. 2018, 34, e1–e17. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  59. Sørensen, K.; Van Den Broucke, S.; Fullam, J.; Doyle, G.; Pelikan, J.; Slonska, Z.; Brand, H. Health literacy and pub-lic health: A systematic review and integration of definitions and models. BMC Public Health 2012, 12, 80. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  60. Wools, A.; Dapper, E.; De Leeuw, J. Colorectal cancer screening participation: A systematic review. Eur. J. Public Health 2015, 26, 158–168. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  61. Perea, M.D.; Castaño-Vinyals, G.; Altzibar, J.M.; Ascunce, N.; Moreno, V.; Tardon, A.; Pollán, M.; Sala, M. Prácticas de cribado de cáncer y estilos de vida asociados en la población de controles del estudio español multi-caso control (MCC-Spain). Gac. Sanit. 2012, 26, 301–310. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  62. Buron, A.; Auge, J.M.; Sala, M.; Roman, M.; Castells, A.; Macià, F.; Comas, M.; Guiriguet, C.; Bessa, X.; Castells, X.; et al. Association between socioeconomic deprivation and colorectal cancer screening outcomes: Low uptake rates among the most and least deprived people. PLoS ONE 2017, 12, e0179864. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  63. Primary Care Information System. Ministry of Health. Available online: https://www.mscbs.gob.es/estadEstudios/estadisticas/docs/siap/SIAP0405.pdf (accessed on 6 August 2018).
  64. García, M.; Borràs, J.; Milà, N.; Espinàs, J.; Binefa, G.; Fernández, E.; Farré, A.; Pla, M.; Cardona, A.; Moreno, V. Factors associated with initial participation in a population-based screening for colorectal cancer in Catalonia, Spain: A mixed-methods study. Prev. Med. 2011, 52, 265–267. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  65. Martin, L.M.; Leff, M.; Calonge, N.; Garrett, C.; Nelson, D.E. Validation of self-reported chronic conditions and health services in a managed care population. Am. J. Prev. Med. 2000, 18, 215–218. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Table
Table 1. Absolute and relative frequencies of respondents who had/had not had a faecal occult blood test (FOBT) according to selected explanatory variables.
Table 1. Absolute and relative frequencies of respondents who had/had not had a faecal occult blood test (FOBT) according to selected explanatory variables.
Total
(N = 7568)		No FOBT
(N = 5377, 71.0%)		Yes FOBT
(N = 2191, 29.0%)
Explanatory Variablen%n%n%p Value
Autonomous community
Basque Country3875.1010727.7028072.30<0.001
Navarre1081.404339.506560.50
Castile–León4365.8022250.9021449.10
Valencian Community82510.9045455.1037044.90
La Rioja540.703156.802343.20
Cantabria991.306060.303939.70
Canary Islands3524.6022363.3012936.70
Aragon2102.8014669.506430.50
Murcia2192.9015671.506228.50
Catalonia122416.2090573.9031926.10
Balearic Islands1752.3013074.604425.40
Galicia4546.0034876.6010623.40
Castile La Mancha3364.4027180.806519.20
Madrid95612.6078181.7017518.30
Asturias2082.8017985.803014.20
Andalusia131317.40112785.9018614.10
Ceuta–Melilla240.302289.60310.40
Extremadura1882.5017291.30168.70
Age
50–54 years236731.3184177.852622.2<0.001
55–59 years204727.0144170.460529.6
60–64 years166622.0111667.055033.0
65–69 years148819.797965.751034.3
Sex
Man371049.0260870.3110229.70.157
Woman385851.0276971.8108928.2
Country of birth
Spain684390.4478669.9205730.1<0.001
Outside Spain7259.659181.513418.5
Flu vaccine (last campaign)
No615081.3449573.1165526.9<0.001
Yes141818.788262.253637.8
Colonoscopy (ever)
No600779.4462677.0138123.0<0.001
Yes156120.6751.048.181051.9
Blood/urine test *
No159221.0127980.331419.7<0.001
Yes597679.0409868.6187731.4
X-ray *
No535970.8387372.3148627.7<0.001
Yes220929.2150468.170531.9
CT scan *
No671588.7484372.1187227.9<0.001
Yes85311.353462.631937.4
Ultrasound *
No620782.0450472.6170427.4<0.001
Yes136118.087364.248735.8
MRI *
No670988.6482171.9188828.1<0.001
Yes85911.455664.730335.3
Hospital admission *
No689591.1493571.6196128.40.002
Yes6738.944265.823034.2
ED visit *
No559974.0402271.8157728.20.011
Yes196926.0135568.861431.2
PC visit (last month)
No503466.5370573.6%132926.4%<0.001
Yes253433.5%167266.0%86234.0%
* in the last year, CT: computed tomography; MRI: magnetic resonance imaging; ED: emergency department; PC: primary care.
Table
Table 2. Prevalence ratios (PRs) estimated by Poisson multiple regression with robust variance for not having had the faecal occult blood test.
Table 2. Prevalence ratios (PRs) estimated by Poisson multiple regression with robust variance for not having had the faecal occult blood test.
Explanatory VariablePR95% CIp Value
Autonomous community
Basque Country1
Extremadura3.039(2.583–3.576)<0.001
Ceuta–Melilla3.001(2.526–3.565)<0.001
Asturias2.993(2.535–3.533)<0.001
Andalusia2.974(2.531–3.495)<0.001
Madrid2.879(2.443–3.393)<0.001
Castile La Mancha2.785(2.355–3.294)<0.001
Galicia2.679(2.266–3.167)<0.001
Catalonia2.563(2.174–3.023)<0.001
Balearic Islands2.494(2.094–2.970)<0.001
Murcia2.479(2.082–2.950)<0.001
Aragon2.403(2.019–2.860)<0.001
Canary Islands2.187(1.828–2.617)<0.001
Cantabria2.020(1.673–2.438)<0.001
La Rioja1.993(1.631–2.435)<0.001
Valencian Community1.883(1.578–2.248)<0.001
Castile–León1.802(1.496–2.170)<0.001
Navarre1433(1.144–1.794)0.002
Age
65–69 years1
60–64 years0.985(0.934–1.038)0.562
55–59 years0.998(0.950–1.049)0.943
50–54 years1.087(1.036–1.141)0.001
Body mass index
Normal1
Overweight0.986(0.951–1.022)0.439
Obesity0.982(0.939–1.028)0.440
Don’t know/no answer1.097(1.028–1.170)0.005
Sex (woman)1.018(0.986–1.051)0.265
Place of birth (outside Spain)1.110(1.057–1.165)<0.001
Flu vaccine(no)1.094(1.043–1.148)<0.001
Colonoscopy (no)1.491(1.399–1.590)<0.001
Ultrasound in last year (no)1.090(1.039–1.144)<0.001
Primary care visit in last month (no)1.076(1.037–1.116)<0.001
Area under the curve = 0.781 (95% CI 0.770–0.792), N = 7568; n (no FOBT) = 5377.
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Nouni-García, R.; Lara-López, Á.; Carratalá-Munuera, C.; Gil-Guillén, V.F.; López-Pineda, A.; Orozco-Beltrán, D.; Quesada, J.A. Factors Associated with Colorectal Cancer Screening in Spain: Results of the 2017 National Health Survey. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2022, 19, 5460. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph19095460

AMA Style

Nouni-García R, Lara-López Á, Carratalá-Munuera C, Gil-Guillén VF, López-Pineda A, Orozco-Beltrán D, Quesada JA. Factors Associated with Colorectal Cancer Screening in Spain: Results of the 2017 National Health Survey. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health. 2022; 19(9):5460. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph19095460

Chicago/Turabian Style

Nouni-García, Rauf, Ángela Lara-López, Concepción Carratalá-Munuera, Vicente F. Gil-Guillén, Adriana López-Pineda, Domingo Orozco-Beltrán, and Jose A. Quesada. 2022. "Factors Associated with Colorectal Cancer Screening in Spain: Results of the 2017 National Health Survey" International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health 19, no. 9: 5460. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph19095460

APA Style

Nouni-García, R., Lara-López, Á., Carratalá-Munuera, C., Gil-Guillén, V. F., López-Pineda, A., Orozco-Beltrán, D., & Quesada, J. A. (2022). Factors Associated with Colorectal Cancer Screening in Spain: Results of the 2017 National Health Survey. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 19(9), 5460. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph19095460

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop