The Effect of a Simple Phone Call Intervention on FIT-Positive Individuals: An Exploratory Study

Introduction

Colorectal cancer (CRC) is the third most common cancer worldwide (Bray et al., 2018). CRC screening has been shown to improve patients’ outcomes by earlier detection and treatment of adenomatous polyps and CRC (Citarda, Tomaselli, Capocaccia, Barcherini, & Crespi, 2001; Winawer et al., 1993).

Singapore has instituted a national CRC screening program using the faecal immunochemical test (FIT) kit, which is free-of-charge to eligible residents (Singapore Cancer Society, n.d.). However, the FIT uptake remains suboptimal (Ministry of Health Singapore, 2010) and most efforts have been focused on increasing uptake rates. What is not often highlighted is that there is a significant proportion of individuals who were tested positive for FIT but chose not to undergo subsequent consultation and colonoscopy (Gingold-Belfer et al., 2019; Tan, Tang, & Koo, 2013).

Literature has suggested that interventions are more often successful when underpinned by a health behaviour theory or framework (Viswanath K, 2015). The Protection Motivation Theory (PMT), states that individuals make decisions to protect themselves (e.g. perform a health behaviour) through an appraisal of threat (e.g. severity of consequences from not performing the behaviour) and an appraisal of coping (e.g. perceived self-efficacy in ability to perform the recommended behaviour) (Rogers, 1975).

While recent studies have attempted to examine the behavioural factors associated with post-FIT colonoscopy, most interventions to improve compliance have so far been atheoretical (Selby et al., 2017). This pilot study was therefore conducted to determine whether a simple intervention based on PMT may be useful in improving the compliance of individuals who initially rejected a follow-up consultation. In addition, common barriers preventing these individuals from seeking follow-up consultation were also collected and elucidated for further understanding.

Methods

Currently in Singapore, individuals who test positive for FIT via the national screening programme will be contacted by a dedicated coordinator in the restructured hospital nearest to their residential address. The coordinator will arrange for a follow-up appointment with a gastrointestinal (GI) specialist who will then recommend a diagnostic colonoscopy if indicated.

Results

Majority of the participants were male (59.8%), with a median age of 65 years (range = 60 – 88 years). Forty one of the 92 participants were contacted within six months of the initial notification of FIT-positive status by the coordinator, and 51 were contacted more than six months after the initial notification of FIT-positive status. The median time from the participant being informed by the coordinator of a positive FIT result to the participant receiving a call from the study team was 48.3 weeks (range = 15 – 123 weeks).

Of the 92 participants, 37 (40.2%) reported that they had already received medical consultation in either a different restructured hospital or a private hospital, and were termed as “doers”. There were two recurring reasons given by doers for seeking alternative arrangements. The first was a desire for an earlier appointment date than the one given by the coordinator. The second was the preference of another institution over the one allocated based on residential proximity.

Several barriers precluded consultation for the remaining 55 participants (59.8%) termed as the “non-doers”. This included 1) denial of the positive FIT result, 2) a lack of knowledge over what a positive FIT result meant, 3) unwillingness to follow-up with an unfamiliar doctor, 4) high cost for follow-up consultations and procedures, and 5) failure to receive any additional follow-up reminders. A descriptive list of barriers can be found in Table 1.

Twelve out of 55 non-doers (21.8%) agreed to see a GI specialist after the study team called them. Six non-doers (10.9%) had previously gone through colonoscopy five to 20 years prior, but only one out of the six of them was willing to go for further consultation. The rest rejected consultation, wanting only to do further investigations if their own doctors recommended it. All five non-doers (9%) who reported not receiving follow-up calls were agreeable to further investigations.

Discussion

Our study showed that a simple phone call could convert over 20% of individuals who initially rejected a follow-up consultation to change their mind. This has significant ramifications for all coordinator-led screening programmes. Individuals with a lack of knowledge may hold the mistaken assumption that a positive FIT result is synonymous with having CRC, and thus, receiving the call relaying the news of a positive FIT result will result in the initial response of shock and denial and hence refusal to seek further consultation. This is demonstrated clearly from our findings as the most frequent barrier reported by non-doers was the denial of a FIT positive result. Many gave reasons for the presence of blood in their stools in order to justify their decision to not go through with a follow-up consultation, wanting to repeat FIT to seek confirmation of a negative result.

Given the sudden nature of the phone call by the coordinator, individuals may need time to accept the implications of a positive test, discuss their results with their loved ones or their general practitioners and explore their options before being open to changing their minds. Thus, what is implicit is that an initial rejection to a referral to see a specialist does not necessarily imply that the patients will not change their minds in future.

Many individuals also appeared to have used the FIT kits without being fully aware of its purpose and implications. Thus, upon receiving the positive test results, some sought to negate its significance or hung on to hope for a negative test as they were not keen to seek further investigations regardless of the FIT results. In fact, it would not be surprising if some patients were in fact symptomatic and did the FIT kits only to allay their fears of harbouring CRC, instead of seeking the definitive opinion of a GI specialist. Thankfully, these reported barriers can be overcome with targeted intervention such as public education, better access, and further subsidy of subsequent investigations and treatment (Community Preventive Services Task Force, 2016).

This study also highlighted the limitation of the current system in reaching out to individuals, as observed by the 9.1% of participants who reported no contact from the coordinator due to their busy schedules or being overseas. A simple follow-up phone call by the study team was sufficient in convincing these participants to schedule a follow-up consultation.

Nonetheless, the small sample size and a non-random sampling frame caveats the generalisability of these findings. Selection bias due to convenience sampling is likely to be present, and participants who were agreeable to participate in this study may not have necessarily been entirely representative of the FIT-positive population at large.

Conclusion

To conclude, this exploratory study suggests that a simple telephone intervention can potentially change the minds of FIT-positive individuals who initially rejected a follow-up consultation in the first instance, improving their compliance rates to completion of the CRC screening process. Future studies may wish to examine the effectiveness of such telephone interventions more rigorously through larger cross-sectional studies or community trials, first to investigate the generalisability of the barriers reported, and then to design interventions that target these relevant barriers preventing non-doers from follow-up investigations.