Search

Aim: The study assessed compliance of patients with familial adenomatous polyposis (FAP) with endoscopic surveillance., Method: In this nationwide, cross-sectional study, individuals from FAP families registered with the Netherlands Foundation for the Detection of Hereditary Tumours were invited to complete a questionnaire on endoscopic screening experiences., Results:  A total of 328 individuals were eligible for the study of whom 85 were at risk for FAP, 108 had an intact rectum after a colectomy with ileorectal anastomosis (IRA), and 135 had had a pouch following a proctocolectomy with ileoanal anastomosis (IPAA). Based on medical record data, 20% of the at-risk group and 26% of the IRA-group were found to be undercompliant with surveillance advice which was associated significantly with perceived self-efficacy, use of sedatives during surveillance, pain after surveillance and low perceived benefits of surveillance (P < 0.05)., Conclusion: One in five individuals at risk for FAP and one in four with a retained rectum are undercompliant with screening advice. We recommend that sedatives should be patient-tailored for FAP individuals undergoing surveillance and that adequate pain medication be provided after endoscopy., (© 2010 The Authors. Colorectal Disease © 2010 The Association of Coloproctology of Great Britain and Ireland.)

Background and Aims: Periodic colonoscopy is an effective means of reducing the incidence and mortality of colorectal cancer in individuals with a family history of the disease. The aims of this study were to determine the degree of compliance and to identify the factors related significantly to noncompliance with periodic screening in this high-risk population., Methods: A total of 178 individuals who had undergone genetic counseling for colorectal cancer between 1986 and 1998 and who had been advised to undergo periodic screening because of familial colorectal cancer (FCRC) or hereditary nonpolyposis colorectal cancer (HNPCC) were invited to complete a self-report questionnaire on psychosocial issues and screening experiences. Compliance data were derived from medical records and via self-report., Results: A total of 149 individuals (84%) participated in the study. Noncompliance with screening advice was rare (in 3% of cases), but significant delays (more than 1 year) in undergoing screening were observed in approximately 25% of the cases. The number of perceived barriers to screening (eg, discomfort, embarrassment) was the only variable related significantly to noncompliance/screening delay (odds ratio, 1.2; 95% confidence interval, 1.1-1.3). Use of sedatives during the procedure and receipt of a reminder letter seemed to facilitate better compliance., Conclusions: Although few high-risk individuals abstain from screening entirely, approximately one in 4 deviates significantly from the recommended frequency of screening. Increased compliance may be achieved by reducing the discomfort and embarrassment associated with the procedure and by the use of reminder letters.