Based on the theory of social representations, this study aims to identify the main determinants to participation in colorectal cancer screening. Six focus groups (N = 29 participants belonging to the general population) were conducted, followed by a theoretical thematic analysis. Screening obstacles are a lack of test’s accessibility, a low preoccupation for prevention and the negative image of colorectal cancer. Conversely, screening facilitators are the ease of the new test, being encouraged to get screened and appointment reminder. This study advances understanding of adherence to screening by addressing the beliefs and knowledge surrounding it.
AbricJ-C (1994) Pratiques sociales et représentations. Paris: Presses Universitaires de France.
2.
AltobelliED’AloisioFAngelettiPM (2016) Colorectal cancer screening in countries of European Council outside of the EU-28. World Journal of Gastroenterology22(20): 4946–4957.
3.
Aubin AugerIMercierABaumann CoblentzL, et al. (2008) Identifier les obstacles au dépistage du cancer colorectal et envisager les moyens de les surmonter. Exercer, La Revue Française de Médecine Générale80: 4–7.
4.
Bauerle-BassSGordonTFRuzekSB, et al. (2011) Perceptions of colorectal cancer screening in urban African American clinic patients: Differences by gender and screening status. Journal of Cancer Education: The Official Journal of the American Association for Cancer Education26(1): 121–128.
5.
BlanchetATrognonA (1994) La psychologie des groupes. Paris: Nathan Université.
6.
BraunVClarkeV (2006) Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology3(2): 77–101.
7.
BridouM (2012) Etude des principaux freins et leviers psychologiques envers l’examen de dépistage du cancer colorectal: Le rôle particulier de l’anxiété envers la santé dans l’adoption de cette démarche. Thèse de doctorat en Psychologie, Université François – Rabelais de Tours, Tours.
8.
BrocGDenisBFassierJ-B, et al. (2017) Decision-making in fecal occult blood test compliance: A quali-quantitative study investigating motivational processes. Preventive Medicine105: 58–65.
9.
BrocGDenisBGanaK, et al. (2015) Efficacité comparée d’un choix informé et d’un appel à la peur appliqués au dépistage du cancer colorectal: Une étude randomisée contrôlée. Revue internationale de psychologie sociale28(3): 59–96.
10.
BrouseCHBaschCEWolfRL, et al. (2003) Barriers to colorectal cancer screening with fecal occult blood testing in a predominantly minority urban population: A qualitative study. American Journal of Public Health93(8): 1268–1271.
11.
ChappleAZieblandSHewitsonP, et al. (2008) What affects the uptake of screening for bowel cancer using a faecal occult blood test (FOBt): A qualitative study. Social Science & Medicine66(12): 2425–2435.
12.
CiorogarGZaharieFCiorogarA, et al. (2016) Quality of life outcomes in patients living with stoma. Indian Journal of Palliative Care8(3): 176–180.
13.
ClavarinoAMJandaMHughesKL, et al. (2004) The view from two sides: A qualitative study of community and medical perspectives on screening for colorectal cancer using FOBT. Preventive Medicine39(3): 482–490.
14.
CoronadoGDFariasAThompsonB, et al. (2006) Attitudes and beliefs about colorectal cancer among Mexican Americans in communities along the US-Mexico border. Ethnicity and Disease16(2): 421–427.
15.
Da SilvaSEDVasconcelosEVde SantanaME, et al. (2010) [That so-called papanicolaou: Women’s social representations about the screening test for cervical cancer]. Revista Da Escola De Enfermagem Da USP44(3): 554–560.
16.
Del CastilloAGodoy-IzquierdoDVázquezML, et al. (2011) Illness beliefs about cancer among healthy adults who have and have not lived with cancer patients. International Journal of Behavioral Medicine18(4): 342–351.
17.
European Commission (2010) European Guidelines for Quality Assurance in Colorectal Cancer Screening and Diagnosis (1st edn). Brussels: European Commission.
18.
FavoritiPCarboneGGrecoM, et al. (2016) Worldwide burden of colorectal cancer: A review. Updates in Surgery68(1): 7–11.
19.
FrancoisFElyséeGShahS, et al. (2009) Colon cancer knowledge and attitudes in an immigrant Haitian community. Journal of Immigrant and Minority Health11(4): 319–325.
20.
Friedemann-SánchezGGriffinJMPartinMR (2007) Gender differences in colorectal cancer screening barriers and information needs. Health Expectations: An International Journal of Public Participation in Health Care and Health Policy10(2): 148–160.
21.
FuschPINessLR (2015) Are we there yet? Data saturation in qualitative research. Qualitative Report20(9): 1408–1416.
22.
Gimeno-GarcíaAZ (2012) Factors influencing colorectal cancer screening participation. Gastroenterology Research and Practice, Gastroen-terology Research and Practice2012: 483417.
23.
GoldsmithGChiaroC (2008) Colorectal cancer screening: How to help patients comply. The Journal of Family Practice57(7): E2–E7.
24.
GoodmanMJOgdieAKanamoriMJ, et al. (2006) Barriers and facilitators of colorectal cancer screening among mid-Atlantic Latinos: Focus group findings. Ethnicity and Disease16(1): 255–261.
25.
GoulaouicS (2013) Etat des lieux du dépistage organisé du cancer colorectal en France. Enquête auprès des médecins généralistes des Pyrénées-Orientales. Thèse de doctorat en Médecine, Université Montpellier 1, France.
26.
GreinerKABornWNollenN, et al. (2005) Knowledge and perceptions of colorectal cancer screening among urban African Americans. Journal of General Internal Medicine20(11): 977–983.
27.
GrønkjærMCurtisTCrespignyC, et al. (2011) Analysing group interaction in focus group research: Impact on content and the role of the moderator. Qualitative Studies2(1): 16–30.
HoltCLRobertsCScarinciI, et al. (2009) Development of a spiritually based educational program to increase colorectal cancer screening among African American men and women. Health Communication24(5): 400–412.
30.
Honein-AbouHaidarGNKastnerMVuongV, et al. (2016) Systematic review and meta-study synthesis of qualitative studies evaluating facilitators and barriers to participation in colorectal cancer screening. Cancer Epidemiology, Biomarkers & Prevention: A Publication of the American Association for Cancer Research, Cosponsored by the American Society of Preventive Oncology25(6): 907–917.
JacquartCHaasV (2006) La rumeur comme modalité de la pensée sociale. In: HaasV (ed.) Savoirs du quotidien: Transmissions, appropriation, représentations. Rennes: Presses Universitaires de Rennes, pp. 51–67.
35.
JanzNKLakhaniIVijanS, et al. (2007) Determinants of colorectal cancer screening use, attempts, and non-use. Preventive Medicine44(5): 452–458.
36.
JonesRMDeversKJKuzelAJ, et al. (2010) Patient-reported barriers to colorectal cancer screening. American Journal of Preventive Medicine38(5): 508–516.
37.
KalampalikisN (2004) Les focus groups, lieux d’ancrages. Bulletin de Psychologie57(3): 281–289.
38.
KalampalikisN (2013) Retour au milieu vital. In: MoscoviciS (ed.) Le scandale de la pensée sociale. Paris: Editions de l’Ehess, pp. 7–15.
39.
KatzMLHeanerSReiterP, et al. (2009) Development of an educational video to improve patient knowledge and communication with their healthcare providers about colorectal cancer screening. American Journal of Health Education: American Alliance for Health, Physical Education, Recreation, and Dance40(4): 220–228.
40.
KellyKMPhillipsCMJenkinsC, et al. (2007) Physician and staff perceptions of barriers to colorectal cancer screening in Appalachian Kentucky. Cancer Control14(2): 167–175.
41.
KitzingerJMarkovaIKalampalikisN (2004) Qu’est-ce que les focus groups?Bulletin de Psychologie57(3): 237–243.
42.
LauPSungJ (2004) Screening for colorectal cancer. Chinese Journal of Digestive Diseases5(3): 87–92.
43.
Le BonniecAPréauMCousson-GélieF (2019) Représentations du dépistage organisé du cancer colorectal: Le point de vue des médecins généralistes. Santé PubliqueS2: 91–103.
44.
MarieDDanyLCannoneP, et al. (2010) Représentations sociales du cancer et de la chimiothérapie: Enjeux pour la définition de la situation thérapeutique. Bulletin Du Cancer97(5): 577–587.
45.
O’MalleyASBeatonEYabroffKR, et al. (2004) Patient and provider barriers to colorectal cancer screening in the primary care safety-net. Preventive Medicine39(1): 56–63.
46.
OsterCZajacIFlightI, et al. (2013) Ambivalence and its influence on participation in screening for colorectal cancer. Qualitative Health Research23(9): 1188–1201.
47.
O’SullivanIOrbellS (2004) Self-sampling in screening to reduce mortality from colorectal cancer: A qualitative exploration of the decision to complete a faecal occult blood test (FOBT). Journal of Medical Screening11(1): 16–22.
48.
PowellAABurgessDJVernonSW, et al. (2009) Colorectal cancer screening mode preferences among US veterans. Preventive Medicine49(5): 442–448.
49.
RateauPMolinerPAbricJ-C, et al. (2012) Social representation theory. In: Van LangePKruglanskiAHigginsE (eds) Handbook of Theories of Social Psychology. London: SAGE, pp. 477–497.
50.
RohlederPLyonsAC (2014) Qualitative Research in Clinical and Health Psychology. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
SchererT (2011) Le dépistage généralisé et organisé du cancer colorectal: Résultats en Moselle par l’Amodemaces et enquête auprès des médecins généralistes. Thèse de doctorat en Médecine Générale, Université Henry Poincaré, Nancy.
53.
Van HalGHoeckSVan RoosbroeckS (2011) Screening for colorectal cancer: Sense and sensibilities. European Journal of Cancer47(Suppl. 3): S156–S163.
54.
VarelaAJandorfLDuHamelK (2010) Understanding factors related to colorectal cancer (CRC) screening among urban Hispanics: Use of focus group methodology. Journal of Cancer Education: The Official Journal of the American Association for Cancer Education25(1): 70–75.
55.
WalshJMKarlinerLBurkeN, et al. (2010) Physicians’ approaches to recommending colorectal cancer screening: A qualitative study. Journal of Cancer Education: The Official Journal of the American Association for Cancer Education25(3): 385–390.
56.
WeitzmanERZapkaJEstabrookB, et al. (2001) Risk and reluctance: Understanding impediments to colorectal cancer screening. Preventive Medicine32(6): 502–513.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
