Search

Objectives: To investigate the psychosocial consequences of receiving a false-positive (no abnormalities) result or being diagnosed with polyps compared with receiving a negative result in a colorectal cancer (CRC) screening programme., Design and Setting: This was a longitudinal study nested in the roll-out of the Danish CRC screening programme that targets all individuals aged 50-74 years., Participants: In the inclusion period (April-September 2017), all positive screenees (n=1854) were consecutively enrolled and matched 2:1:1 on sex, age (±2 years), municipality and screening date with negative screenees (n=933) and individuals not yet invited to screening (n=933).Questionnaires were sent by mail to all eligible participants in Region Zealand, Denmark, after the screening result, 2 months and 12 months after the final result.Positive screenees who did not receive the follow-up procedure were excluded., Main Outcome Measures: The primary outcomes were psychosocial consequences. Outcomes were measured with the CRC screening-specific questionnaire Consequences of screening in CRC with 11 outcomes after the screening result and with 21 outcomes at the two later assessments., Results: After receiving the screening result, individuals with no abnormalities, low-risk and medium-risk and high-risk polyps scored significantly worse on 8 of 11 outcomes compared with the negative screenee group. At the 12-month follow-up, the differences were still significant in 8 of 21 outcomes (no abnormalities), 4 of 21 outcomes (low-risk polyps) and 10 of 21 outcomes (medium-risk and high-risk polyps). The negative screenee group and the group not yet invited to screening differed psychosocially on 5 of 11 outcomes after the screening result, but on none of the 21 outcomes at the 2 months and 12 months follow-up., Conclusions: The study showed that there are both short-term and long-term psychosocial consequences associated with receiving a no abnormalities result or being diagnosed with polyps. The consequences were worst for individuals diagnosed with medium-risk and high-risk polyps., Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2022. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

Introduction: The objective of this study was to analyse Danish general practitioners' (GPs) a priori attitudes and expectations towards a nationwide mandatory accreditation programme., Methods: This study is based on a nationwide electronic survey comprising all Danish GPs (n = 3,403)., Results: A total of 1,906 (56%) GPs completed the questionnaire. In all, 861 (45%) had a negative attitude towards accreditation, whereas 429 (21%) were very positive or posi-tive. The negative attitudes towards accreditation were associated with being older, male and with working in a singlehanded practice. A regional difference was observed as well. GPs with negative expectations were more likely to agree that accreditation was a tool meant for external control (odds ratio (OR) = 1.87 (95% confidence interval (CI): 1.18-2.95)), less likely to agree that accreditation was a tool for quality improvement (OR = 0.018 (95% CI: 0.013-0.025)), more likely to agree that it would affect job satisfaction negatively (OR = 21.88 (95% CI: 16.10-29.72)), and they were generally less satisfied with their present job situation (OR = 2.51 (95% CI: 1.85-3.41))., Conclusion: Almost half of the GPs had negative attitudes towards accreditation., Funding: The three Research Units for General Practice in Odense, Aarhus and Copenhagen initiated and funded this study., Trial Registration: The survey was recommended by the Danish Multipractice Committee (MPU 02-2015) and evaluated by the Danish Data Agency (2015-41-3684).