Factors influencing participation in colorectal cancer screening—a qualitative study in an ethnic and socio‐economically diverse inner city population
Open accessAbstract
Background: Ethnic and socio‐economic inequalities have been reported in the uptake of colorectal cancer (CRC) screening. This study aimed to explore the factors affecting CRC screening participation in an ethnically and socio‐economically diverse inner city population. Methods: Semi‐structured interviews were undertaken with 50 people aged 55–74 years, recruited from GP practices in south‐east London. Participants were from Black African (n=13), Black Caribbean (n=15), White British (n=17), Black other (n=2) and White other (n=3) backgrounds. Participants' socio‐economic status (SES) was assessed using a combined measure of educational attainment, housing tenure and car ownership. Participants' SES varied although there were more participants from less deprived backgrounds than those from more deprived backgrounds. The interview topic guide was informed by the Theoretical Domains Framework. Interviews were recorded, transcribed and analysed using framework analysis. Findings: Lack of awareness of CRC screening was a barrier for all participants. There were also some notable group differences by ethnicity and SES. Cancer fear was a barrier for White British participants of varying SES. Misunderstanding instructions for completing the guaiac faecal occult blood test (gFOB t) was a barrier for people of low SES regardless of ethnicity. For Black African and Black Caribbean participants, of any SES, religious faith and a perceived civic duty to participate in screening encouraged participation. Discussion and conclusions: This is the first study to provide detailed information on the separate views of Black African and Black Caribbean participants about screening. Consideration of ethnicity and SES together also allowed us to identify pertinent barriers for particular groups that can be targeted to improve access to screening for those who wish to take part.
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
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.
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
The effect of SES is most likely related to other factors such as health illiteracy.
“The effect of SES is most likely related to other factors such as health illiteracy [8].”
From Improving cancer screening uptake: A behavioural and cultural insights perspective and rapid review (2026) · cites this paper as [8]
The Introduction says SES may affect colorectal screening uptake through several pathways, and the Discussion reports that lower-SES participants had more difficulty understanding test instructions. This supports literacy-related difficulties as a possible factor, but the paper does not establish that health illiteracy is the most likely explanation for the effect of SES. No page numbers were available in our copy. (LLM, conf=0.83)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredIn the United Kingdom, misunderstanding instructions for CRC home-testing was a barrier for people with low socio-economic status.
“In the United Kingdom however, misunderstanding instructions for CRC home-testing was a barrier for people with low socio-economic status [8].”
From Improving cancer screening uptake: A behavioural and cultural insights perspective and rapid review (2026) · cites this paper as [8]
Fear of cancer is an emotional barrier.
“Emotional barriers include fear of cancer, screening results and treatment [8,9,15] and fatalism [10,24].”
From Improving cancer screening uptake: A behavioural and cultural insights perspective and rapid review (2026) · cites this paper as [8]
Perceived benefits such as reassurance of not having cancer or detecting cancer at a treatable stage are positively related to cancer screening.
“Perceived benefits such as reassurance of not having cancer or detecting cancer at a treatable stage have been positively related to cancer screening [8,11,14,17,20].”
From Improving cancer screening uptake: A behavioural and cultural insights perspective and rapid review (2026) · cites this paper as [8]
In the United Kingdom, a perceived civic duty to participate in screening encouraged CRC screening attendance for Black African and Black Caribbean participants.
“In the United Kingdom, religious faith and a perceived civic duty to participate in screening encouraged attendance for Black African and Black Caribbean participants [8].”
From Improving cancer screening uptake: A behavioural and cultural insights perspective and rapid review (2026) · cites this paper as [8]
In the United Kingdom, religious faith encouraged CRC screening attendance for Black African and Black Caribbean participants.
“In the United Kingdom, religious faith and a perceived civic duty to participate in screening encouraged attendance for Black African and Black Caribbean participants [8].”
From Improving cancer screening uptake: A behavioural and cultural insights perspective and rapid review (2026) · cites this paper as [8]
Fear of treatment is an emotional barrier.
“Emotional barriers include fear of cancer, screening results and treatment [8,9,15] and fatalism [10,24].”
From Improving cancer screening uptake: A behavioural and cultural insights perspective and rapid review (2026) · cites this paper as [8]
The Results section (page unavailable) classifies fear of cancer and screening outcomes as emotional barriers, but does not identify fear of treatment as a barrier. Searches for fear of treatment and treatment-related terms found no passage addressing that specific claim. (LLM, conf=0.72)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
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
Cane, J., O’Connor, D., & Michie, S. (2012) · Implementation Science · doi:10.1186/1748-5908-7-37 · Cited by 4,888 · see citing works
Making psychological theory useful for implementing evidence based practice: a consensus approach
Michie, S. (2005) · Quality and Safety in Health Care · doi:10.1136/qshc.2004.011155 · Cited by 3,440 · see citing works
Francis, J. J., Stockton, C., Eccles, M. P., Johnston, M., Cuthbertson, B. H., Grimshaw, J. M., Hyde, C., Tinmouth, A., & Stanworth, S. J. (2009) · British Journal of Health Psychology · doi:10.1348/135910708x397025 · Cited by 230 · see citing works
Dyson, J., Lawton, R., Jackson, C., & Cheater, F. (2011) · Journal of Infection Prevention · doi:10.1177/1757177410384300 · Cited by 142 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Research works printed but not linked: 25
- [2]Hewitson P, Glasziou P, Watson E, Towler B, Irwig L. Cochrane systematic review of colorectal cancer screening using the fecal occult blood test (hemoccult): an update. Am J Gastroenterol. 2008; 103: 1541– 1549. 18479499
- [3]von Wagner C, Good A, Whitaker KL, Wardle J. Psychosocial determinants of socioeconomic inequalities in cancer screening participation: a conceptual framework. Epidemiol Rev. 2011; 33: 135– 147. 21586673
- [4]Whitaker KL, Good A, Miles A, Robb K, Wardle J, von Wagner C. Socioeconomic inequalities in colorectal cancer screening uptake: does time perspective play a role? Health Psychol. 2011; 30: 702– 709. 21639637
- [5]Aarts MJ, Lemmens VE, Louwman MW, Kunst AE, Coebergh JW. Socioeconomic status and changing inequalities in colorectal cancer? A review of the associations with risk, treatment and outcome. Eur J Cancer. 2010; 46: 2681– 2695. 20570136
- [6]Honein‐AbouHaidar GN, Kastner M, Vuong V, et al. Systematic review and meta‐study synthesis of qualitative studies evaluating facilitators and barriers to participation in colorectal cancer screening. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev. 2016; 25: 907– 917. 27197277
- [7]Weller D, Coleman D, Robertson R, et al. The UK colorectal cancer screening pilot: results of the second round of screening in England. Br J Cancer. 2007; 97: 1601– 1605. 18026197 PMC2360273
- [11]Hall NJ, Rubin GP, Dobson C, Weller D, Wardle J, Ritchie M, Rees CJ. Attitudes and beliefs of non‐participants in a population‐based screening programme for colorectal cancer. Health Expect. 2015; 18: 1645– 1657. 24268129 PMC5060871
- [12]Chapple A, Ziebland S, Hewitson P, McPherson A. What affects the uptake of screening for bowel cancer using a faecal occult blood test (FOBt): a qualitative study. Soc Sci Med. 2008; 66: 2425– 2435. 18358581
- [13]Robb KA, Solarin I, Power E, Atkin W, Wardle J. Attitudes to colorectal cancer screening among ethnic minority groups in the UK. BMC Public Health. 2008; 8: 34. 18221519 PMC2267180
- [14]Craig P, Dieppe P, Macintyre S, Michie S, Nazareth I, Petticrew M. Developing and evaluating complex interventions: the new Medical Research Council guidance. BMJ. 2008; 337: a1655. 18824488 PMC2769032
- [18]Burgess C, Wright AJ, Forster AS, Dodhia H, Miller J, Fuller F, Cajeat E, Gulliford MC. Influences on individuals' decisions to take up the offer of a health check: a qualitative study. Health Expect. 2015; 18: 2437– 2448. 24889817 PMC5810718
- [20]Crockett R, Wilkinson TM, Marteau TM. Social patterning of screening uptake and the impact of facilitating informed choices: psychological and ethical analyses. Health Care Anal. 2008; 16: 17– 30. 18240023 PMC2244696
- [21]Crockett RA, Weinman J, Hankins M, Marteau T. Time orientation and health‐related behaviour: measurement in general population samples. Psychol Health. 2009; 24: 333– 350. 20204997 PMC2657323
- [22]Ritchie J, Spencer L. Qualitative data analysis for applied policy research In: Bryman A, Burgess RG, eds. Analyzing Qualitative Data. London: Routledge; 1994: 173– 194.
- [23]Molina‐Barcelo A, Salas Trejo D, Peiro‐Perez R, Malaga Lopez A. To participate or not? Giving voice to gender and socio‐economic differences in colorectal cancer screening programmes. Eur J Cancer care. 2011; 20: 669– 678. 21771129
- [24]Arnold CL, Rademaker A, Bailey SC, et al. Literacy barriers to colorectal cancer screening in community clinics. J Health Commun. 2012; 17(Suppl 3): 252– 264. 23030574 PMC3748808
- [25]Brouse CH, Basch CE, Wolf RL, Shmukler C, Neugut AI, Shea S. Barriers to colorectal cancer screening with fecal occult blood testing in a predominantly minority urban population: a qualitative study. Am J Public Health. 2003; 93: 1268– 1271. 12893609 PMC1447951
- [27]McCaffery K, Wardle J, Waller J. Knowledge, attitudes, and behavioral intentions in relation to the early detection of colorectal cancer in the United Kingdom. Prev Med. 2003; 36: 525– 535. 12689797
- [29]Robb KA, Wardle J, Stubbings S, et al. Ethnic disparities in knowledge of cancer screening programmes in the UK. J Med Screen. 2010; 17: 125– 131. 20956722 PMC4116226
- [30]Kheirandish P, Chinegwundoh F. Ethnic differences in prostate cancer. Br J Cancer. 2011; 105: 481– 485. 21829203 PMC3170971
- [31]Palmer CK, Thomas MC, von Wagner C, Raine R. Reasons for non‐uptake and subsequent participation in the NHS Bowel Cancer Screening Programme: a qualitative study. Br J Cancer. 2014; 110: 1705– 1711. 24619071 PMC3974074
- [33]Wardle J, Von Wagner C, Kralj‐Hans I, et al. Effects of evidence‐based strategies to reduce the socioeconomic gradient of uptake in the English NHS Bowel Cancer Screening Programme (ASCEND): four cluster randomised controlled trials. Lancet. 2016; 387: 751– 759. 26680217 PMC4761689
- [34]Hewitson P, Ward AM, Heneghan C, Halloran SP, Mant D. Primary care endorsement letter and a patient leaflet to improve participation in colorectal cancer screening: results of a factorial randomised trial. Br J Cancer. 2011; 105: 475– 480. 21829202 PMC3170960
- [35]Waller J, Macedo A, Von Wagner C, Simon AE, Jones C, Hammersley V, Weller D, Wardle J, Campbell C. Communication about colorectal cancer screening in Britain: public preferences for an expert recommendation. Br J Cancer. 2012; 107: 1938– 1943. 23175148 PMC3516693
- [37]Chambers JA, Callander AS, Grangeret R, O'Carroll RE. Attitudes towards the Faecal Occult Blood Test (FOBT) versus the Faecal Immunochemical Test (FIT) for colorectal cancer screening: perceived ease of completion and disgust. BMC Cancer. 2016; 16: 1. PMC4752755 26872450
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Dressler, J., Johnsen, A. T., Madsen, L. J., Rasmussen, M., & Jorgensen, L. N. (2021) · Public Health · doi:10.1016/j.puhe.2020.10.025 · Cited by 95 · see citing works
Vallone, F., Lemmo, D., Martino, M. L., Donizzetti, A. R., Freda, M. F., Palumbo, F., Lorenzo, E., D’Argenzio, A., & Caso, D. (2022) · Psycho-Oncology · doi:10.1002/pon.5997 · Cited by 65 · see citing works
Improving cancer screening uptake: A behavioural and cultural insights perspective and rapid review
Palsola, M., Likki, T., Snijders, V., Corbex, M., Lasierra, L., & Curtis, B. (2026) · Glasnik javnog zdravlja · doi:10.5937/serbjph2601086p
- Authors
- Dharni, N., Armstrong, D., Chung‐Faye, G., & Wright, A. J.
- Affiliations
- Bradford Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust (GB)
- King's College London (GB)
- King's College Hospital NHS Foundation Trust (GB)
- Corresponding author
- Dharni, Nimarta
- Venue
- Health Expectations
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2016-08-22
- Volume
- 20
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- 608-617
- ISSN
- 1369-6513 (ISSN-L)
- 1369-7625
- PMC
- PMC5513014
- OpenAlex
- W2514787625
- Cited by
- 41
- References
- 4
- Citations by year
- 2026: 8 · 2025: 4 · 2024: 2 · 2023: 6 · 2022: 6 · 2021: 2 · 2020: 4 · 2019: 1 · 2018: 4 · 2017: 3 · 2016: 1
- FWCI
- 1.62
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- gold
- doi.org
- Licence
- Locations
- Health Expectations (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Research Portal (King's College London) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
- UCL Discovery (University College London) (submittedVersion)
- Funders
- Kings College London
- 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 › Health Promotion and Cardiovascular Prevention
- Keywords
- colorectal cancer screening, screening uptake, ethnic inequality, socioeconomic disparities, Black Africans, Black Caribbean, guaiac fecal occult blood test, fear of cancer, faith, civic responsibility, barriers to screening, inner-city population, Theoretical Domains Framework, health disparities
- MeSH terms
- Aged, Ethnicity, Female, Humans, Health Knowledge, Attitudes, Practice, London, Male, Middle Aged, Occult Blood, Socioeconomic Factors, Urban Population, Colorectal Neoplasms, Qualitative Research, 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