Cited by 24Colorectal Cancer Screening and DetectionGlobal Cancer Incidence and ScreeningEthics and bioethics in healthcare

Low participation in organized colorectal cancer screening in France: underlying ethical issues

Open access
Moutel, Grégoire, Duchange, Nathalie, Lièvre, Astrid, Orgerie, Marie Brigitte, Jullian, Odile, Sancho-Garnier, Hélène, Darquy, Sylviane·2019·European Journal of Cancer Prevention

Abstract

International studies have shown a significant reduction in colorectal cancer (CRC) mortality following the implementation of organized screening programs, given a sufficient participation rate and adequate follow-up. The French national CRC screening program has been generalized since 2008 and targets 18 million men and women aged 50–74 years. Despite broad recommendations, the participation rate remains low (29.8%), questioning the efficiency of the program. A panel of experts was appointed by the French National Cancer Institute to critically examine the place of autonomy and efficiency in CRC screening and propose recommendations. In this paper, we explore the ethical significance of a public health intervention that falls short of its objectives owing to low take-up by the population targeted. First, we analyze the reasons for the low CRC screening participation. Second, we examine the models that can be proposed for public health actions, reconciling respect for the individual and the collective good. Our expert panel explored possible ways to enhance take-up of CRC screening within the bounds of individual autonomy, adapting awareness campaigns, and new educational approaches that take into account knowledge and analysis of sociocultural hurdles. Although public health actions must be universal, target actions should nonetheless be developed for nonparticipating population subgroups.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1097/cej.0000000000000417

Cites

44 of 44 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 8

  1. [4]4. Beauchamp TL and Childress JF. Principles of Biomedical Ethics. New York/Oxford: Oxford University Press, [1983] 1994.
  2. [12]12. Champion V, Skinner CS. The health belief model. In: Glanz K, Rimer BK, Wisnanath K, editors. Health Behavior and Health Education: Theory, Research and Practice. 4th edition. San Francisco, Calif, USA: Jossey-Bass, 2008, pp. 45-65.
  3. [16]16. European Commission, 2010. European guidelines for quality assurance in colorectal cancer screening and diagnosis. First Edition. Editors N. Segnan J. Patnick L. von Karsa. www.kolorektum.cz/res/file/guidelines/CRC-screening-guidelines-EC-2011- 02-03.pdf European Union Council Recommendation: Official Journal of 2 December 2003 on cancer screening. 2003/878/EC.
  4. [17]17. Faivre J. Epidémiologie et prévention du cancer colorectal. Digest Springer Verlag France, 2001.
  5. [40]40. Marmot, M. Fair society, healthy lives: the Marmot Review: strategic review of health inequalities in England post-2010, 2010. ISBN 9780956487001
  6. [49]49. Potter VR. Humility with Responsibility. A Bioethic for Oncologists. Cancer Res 1975; 35:2297-306.
  7. [50]50. Pucheu S. Le cancer colorectal, un cancer qu'il faut sortir de l'ombre. Psycho Oncologie 2008; 2:121-23.
  8. [55]55. Sen A. Rights and Capabilities, in Ethics and Objectivity. Edit. T. Honderich, London, Routledge, 1985.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Moutel, G., Duchange, N., Lièvre, A., Orgerie, M. B., Jullian, O., Sancho-Garnier, H., & Darquy, S.
Affiliations
  • Inserm (FR)
  • Centre Hospitalier Universitaire de Tours (FR)
  • Institut National du Cancer (FR)
  • JDB Prevention-Cancer Foundation, Fontenay-lès-Briis
  • Université de Bordeaux (FR)
Corresponding author
Darquy, Sylviane
Venue
European Journal of Cancer Prevention
Published
2019-01
Volume
28
Issue
1
Pages
27-32
ISSN
0959-8278 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2913475320
Cited by
24
References
44
Citations by year
2025: 3 · 2024: 2 · 2023: 4 · 2022: 3 · 2021: 5 · 2020: 4 · 2019: 3
FWCI
0.84
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
other-oa
Locations
  • European Journal of Cancer Prevention (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • HAL (submittedVersion, other-oa)
  • HAL (submittedVersion)
  • Oskar-Bordeaux (Universite de Bordeaux) (submittedVersion)
Funders
  • Institut National de la Santé et de la Recherche Médicale
  • Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique
  • Institut National Du Cancer
  • Université Paris-Est Créteil Val-de-Marne
  • Institut de Veille Sanitaire
  • Université de Franche-Comté
  • National Cancer Institute
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Oncology › Colorectal Cancer Screening and Detection
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Oncology › Global Cancer Incidence and Screening
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Ethics and bioethics in healthcare
Keywords
colorectal cancer screening, screening uptake, organized screening programs, individual autonomy, public health ethics, public awareness campaigns, socio-cultural barriers, expert panel recommendations
MeSH terms
Female, France, Humans, Health Knowledge, Attitudes, Practice, Male, Middle Aged, Patient Participation, Socioeconomic Factors, Colorectal Neoplasms, Personal Autonomy, Early Detection of Cancer

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review