Gender, having a positive FIT and type of hospital are important factors for colonoscopy experience in colorectal cancer screening – findings from the SCREESCO study

Figures & data

Table 1. Study-specific questionnaire measuring colonoscopy experience.

Questions:		Response options:
Q1	How did you perceive yourself to be informed regarding the examination?	Five response options: Bad Pretty bad Neither nor Good Very good
Q2	How did you perceive that you were treated for during the examination?
Q3	How did you perceive that you were cared for during the examination?
Q4	To what extent did you worry prior to the examination?	Five response options: Not at all Fairly little Neither nor A lot Very much
Q5	To what extent did you feel discomfort during the examination?
Q6	To what extent did you feel pain during the examination?
Q7	To what extent did you worry regarding the examination result?
Q8	Did you have to take time off from work for the bowel preparation and/or for the examination itself?	Response options: Yes No
Q9	Do you consider it worth the effort to go through an examination in order to reduce the risk of colorectal cancer?	Response options: Yes No/don’t know
Q10	If you, in the future, were offered to be re-examined to reduce the risk of colorectal cancer, would you participate?

Figure 1. Proportions (%) of individuals, divided by gender and randomization group, who reported ‘much’/‘very much’ to questions 4–7 in the study specific questionnaire.

Table 2. Clinical characteristics presented by sex and randomization group.

Total sample n = 6572	Total sample n (%)^c	Female n (%)	Male n (%)	p-Value^a	Direct colonoscopy n (%)	FIT^a colonoscopy n (%)	p-Value^a
Sex, n = 6572
Male	3368 (51)				2107 (51)	1237 (51)	.923
Female	3204 (49)				2000 (49)	1180 (49)
BMI	n = 6490	n = 3166	n = 3324		n = 4050	n = 2392
<25	2243 (35)	1311 (42)	932 (28)	<.001	1469 (36)	758 (32)	<.001
25–30	2811 (43)	1146 (36)	1665 (50)		1751 (43)	1044 (44)
>30	1436 (22)	709 (22)	727 (22)		830 (21)	590 (24)
Randomization, n = 6524
Colonoscopy,	4107 (63)	2000 (63)	2107 (62)	.923
FIT^b	2417 (37)	1180 (37)	1237 (38)
Hospital region	n = 6572	n = 3204	n = 3368		n = 4107	n = 2417
North	705 (11)	327 (10)	378 (11)	.462	459 (11)	246 (10)	.016
Uppsala-Örebro	2146 (33)	1073 (34)	1073 (32)		1287 (31)	836 (34)
South-West	852 (13)	416 (13)	436 (13)		544 (13)	304 (13)
West	1144 (17)	544 (17)	600 (18)		698 (17)	438 (18)
South	1725 (26)	844 (26)	881 (26)		1119 (28)	593 (25)
Hospital University	n = 6572	n = 3204	n = 3368		n = 4107	n = 2417
Yes	1610 (24)	799 (25)	811 (24)	.419	1006 (25)	597 (25)	.852
Previous colonoscopy	n = 3165	n = 1558	n = 1607		n = 1713	n = 1436
Yes	559 (18)	319 (20)	240 (15)	<.001	243 (14)	304 (21)	<.001
Complications	n = 5429	n = 2629	n = 2800		n = 3624	n = 1759
Yes	105 (2)	37 (1)	68 (2)	.006	64 (2)	41 (2)	0.160
Sedation	n = 6572	n = 3204	n = 3368		n = 4107	n = 2417
Deep	460 (7)	245 (9)	215 (6)	<.001	320 (7)	133 (6)	<.01
Mild	2379 (36)	1337 (42)	1002 (30)		1521 (38)	833 (34)
None	3733 (57)	1582 (49)	2151 (64)		2266 (55)	1451 (60)
Clean bowel	n = 5440	n = 2635	n = 2805		n = 3630	n = 1763
Yes	5288 (97)	2559 (97)	2729 (97)	.696	3536 (97)	1712 (99)	.518
Time to cecum	n = 5332	n = 2565	n = 2767		n = 3566	n = 1723
<10 min	2461 (46)	932 (36)	1529 (55)	<.001	1637 (46)	806 (47)	.780
10–20	2307 (43)	1279 (50)	1028 (37)		1543 (43)	739 (43)
>20	564 (11)	354 (14)	210 (8)		386 (11)	178 (9)
Polyps or cancer	n = 6443	n = 3141	n = 3302		n = 3566	n = 1723
Yes	3016 (47)	1325 (42)	1691 (51)	<.001	1655 (46)	1337 (78)	<.01

^aChi-square test; ^bFIT: fecal immunochemical test; ^cn denotes the number with factual information.

Table 3. Regression models with the 10 questions in the study specific questionnaire measuring colonoscopy experience as dependent variables.

Q1. How did you perceive yourself to be informed regarding the examination? (n = 6545)				Q2. How did you perceive the treatment during the examination? (n = 6557)			Q3. How did you perceive the care you were given during the examination? (n = 6338)
Independent predictor variables	βCoeff.	95% confidence interval	p-Value	βCoeff.	95% confidence interval	p-Value	βCoeff.	95% confidence interval	p-Value
Gender, ref = male	0.113	0.079 to 0.146	<.001	0.033	0.015 to 0.052	<.001	0.050	0.031 to 0.070	<.001
BMI, ref = BMI < 25
>25–30	−0.022	−0.059 to 0.015	.254	0.053	−0.015 to 0.025	.603	0.012	−0.009 to 0.033	.276
>30	−0.015	−0.060 to −0.029	.493	−0.016	−0.040 to 0.008	.181	−0.003	−0.029 to 0.023	.830
Randomization, ref = DK	−0.011	−0.046 to 0.024	.533	−0.002	−0.020 to 0.017	.870	0.005	−0.016 to 0.025	.646
Hospital – region, ref = North
Uppsala-Örebro	−0.098	−0.155 to 0.404	.001	−0.024	−0.055 to 0.007	.126	−0.031	−0.067 to 0.005	.094
South-east	−0.010	−0.079 to 0.058	.764	0.030	−0.007 to 0.067	.111	0.031	−0.011 to 0.072	.146
West	0.030	−0.324 to 0.092	.345	0.012	−0.021 to 0.046	.468	0.006	−0.032 to 0.045	.737
South	−0.049	−0.107 to 0.008	.095	−0.006	−0.037 to 0.025	.709	−0.005	−0.041 to 0.031	.774
Type of hospital, ref = University Hospital	0.075	0.032 to 0.117	.001	0.046	0.023 to 0.069	<.001	0.047	0.230 to 0.071	<.001
Complications, ref = yes	0.075	−0.046 to 0.197	.224	0.004	−0.061 to 0.069	.899	−0.019	−0.089 to 0.052	.602
Sedation, ref = deep
Mild	0.009	−0.072 to 0.054	.779	0.040	0.074 to 0.006	.022	−0.5001	−0.086 to −0.014	.006
none	0.009	−0.054 to 0.072	.779	0.027	−0.061 to 0.007	.117	−0.0313	−0.067 to 0.004	.087
Clean bowel, ref = yes	−0.114	−0.227 to −0.002	.046	0.003	−0.058 to 0.064	0.923	−0.007	−0.072 to 0.059	.841
Time to caecum, ref= <10
10–20 min	−0.019	−0.055 to 0.016	.276	0.012	−0.007 to 0.031	.225	0.005	−0.015 to 0.026	.608
>20 min	−0.001	−0.057 to 0.055	.965	.010	−0.021 to 0.040	.532	−0.003	−0.035 to 0.030	.865
Polyps or cancer, ref = yes	0.025	−0.008 to 0.058	.143	.002	−0.016 to 0.020	.806	0.004	−0.015 to 0.023	.684
R^2 = 0.0167; p ≤ .001				R^2 = 0.0080; p = .004			R^2 = 0.0102; p ≤ .001

Positive βcoefficients indicate more satisfaction regarding information, treatment and caring compared with the reference.

Table 4. Regression models with the 10 questions in the study specific questionnaire measuring colonoscopy experience as dependent variables.

Q4. To what extent did you worry prior to the examination? (n = 6523)				Q5. To what extent did you feel discomfort during the examination? (n = 6496)			Q6. To what extent did you feel pain during the examination? (n = 6466)			Q7. To what extent did you worry regarding the examination result? (n = 6396)
Independent predictor variables	βCoeff.	95% confidence interval	p-Value	βCoeff.	95% confidence interval	p-Value	βCoeff.	95% confidence interval	p-Value	βCoeff.	95% confidence interval	p-Value
Gender, ref = male	−0.391	−0.453 to −0.329	<.001	−0.208	−0.264 to −0.153	<.001	−0.314	−0.375 to −0.253	<.001	−0.209	−0.272 to− 0.146	<.001
BMI, ref = BMI < 25
>25–30	−0.037	−0.105 to 0.031	.287	−0.016	−0.077 to 0.044	.595	0.011	−0.055 to 0.078	.736	−0.038	−0.107 to 0.031	.282
>30	−0.076	−0.158 to 0.005	.067	−0.010	−0.082 to 0.063	.792	0.152	−0.064 to 0.095	.709	−0.144	−0.228 to −0.061	.001
Randomization, ref = DK	−0.471	−0.535 to −0.407	<.001	−0.122	−0.179 to −0.065	<.001	−0.111	−0.174 to −0.049	.001	−0.754	−0.819 to −0.688	<.001
Hospital – region, ref = North
Uppsala-Örebro	−0.053	−0.159 to 0.052	.321	−0.024	−0.118 to 0.070	.614	0.042	−0.061 to 0 .145	.427	−0.054	−0.170 to 0.062	.365
South-east	0.055	−0.070 to 0.181	.389	0.217	0.105 to 0.329	<.001	0.299	0.176 to 0.422	<.001	0.011	−0.122 to 0.145	.870
West	−0.0923	−0.207 to 0.022	.113	0.055	−0.047 to 0.156	.294	0.159	0.047 to 0.271	.005	−0.108	−0.231 to 0.015	.086
South	−0.117	−0.223 to −0.011	.030	0.102	0.008 to 0.196	.034	0.179	0.075 to 0.282	.001	−0.108	−0.224 to 0.007	.067
Type of hospital, ref = University Hospital	0.080	0.003 to 0.158	.043	0.147	0.078 to 0.217	<.001	0.181	0.105 to 0.257	<.001	0.087	0.009 to 0.165	.029
Complications, ref = yes	−0.043	−0.266 to 0.180	.704	0.424	0.226 to 0.621	<.001	0.521	0.304 to 0.737	<.001	0.051	−0.175 to 0.278	.656
Sedation, ref = deep
Mild	−0.097	−0.213 to 0.018	.099	−0.608	−0711 to −0.504	<.001	−0.728	−0.841 to −0.615	<.001	−0.049	−0.165 to 0.068	.413
none	0.129	0.014 to 0.245	.028	−0.607	−0710 to −0.504	<.001	−0.669	−0.782 to −0.557	<.001	0.067	−0.049 to 0.183	.259
Clean bowel, ref = yes	0.191	−0.015 to 0.398	.070	0.059	−0.124 to 0.242	.530	0.086	−0.115 to 0.286	.402	0.115	−0.097 to 0.328	.288
Time to caecum, ref ≤ 10
10–20 min	0.015	−0.049 to 0.079	.647	−0.221	−0.278 to −0.163	<.001	−0.305	−0.368 to −0.242	<.001	0.014	−0.051 to 0.080	.673
>20 min	−0.004	−0.107 to 0.099	.944	−0.597	−0.689 to −0.505	<.001	−0.763	−0.864 to −0.662	<.001	−0.078	−0.183 to 0.027	.144
Polyps or cancer, ref = yes	0.032	−0.028 to 0.093	.294	0.042	−0.012 to 0.096	.127	0.028	−0.032 to 0.087	.358	0.001	−0.061 to 0.063	.974
R^2 = 0.0877; p ≤ .001				R^2 = 0.0911; p ≤ .001			R^2 = 0.1212; p ≤ .001			R^2 = 0.1140; p ≤ .001

Positive βcoefficients indicate less worry, discomfort and pain compared with the reference.

Table 5. Regression models with the 10 questions in the study specific questionnaire measuring colonoscopy experience as dependent variables.

Q8. Did you have to take time off from work for the bowel preparation and/or for the examination itself? (n = 6327)				Q9. Do you consider it worth the effort to go through an examination in order to reduce the risk of colorectal cancer? (n = 6340)			Q10. If you in the future, were offered to be re-examined to reduce the risk of colorectal cancer, would you participate? (n = 6339)
Independent predictor variables	βCoeff.	95% confidence interval	p-Value	βCoeff.	95% confidence interval	p-Value	βCoeff.	95% confidence interval	p-Value
Gender, ref = male	0.079	0.052 to 0.106	<.001	−0.007	−0.015 to 0.001	.107	0.026	0.009 to 0.044	.004
BMI, ref = BMI < 25
>25–30	0.012	−0.017 − 0.041	.418	0.001	−0.009 to 0.009	.958	−0.010	−0.030 to 0.009	.299
>30	0.076	0.041 to 0.111	<.001	0.002	−0.009 to 0.013	.715	−0.005	−0.029 to 0.018	.666
Randomization, ref = DK	0.031	0.004 to 0.059	.025	0.008	−0.001 to 0.017	.071	−0.012	−0.031 to 0.006	.183
Hospital – region, ref = North
Uppsala-Örebro	−0.044	−0.093 to 0.005	.078	0.007	−0.009 to 0.022	.398	0.003	−0.029 to 0.036	.841
South-east	−0.107	−0.164 − to 0.051	<.001	0.003	−0.014 to 0.021	.694	−0.057	−0.094 to −0.019	.003
West	−0.070	−0.123 to −0.018	.008	0.005	−0.011 to 0.022	.510	−0.020	−0.055 to 0.015	.263
South	−0.050	−0.099 to 0.001	.047	0.013	−0.003 to 0.028	.112	−0.015	−0.048 to 0.018	.369
Type of hospital, ref = University Hospital	−0.005	−0.032 to 0.028	.770	−0.017	−0.028 to −0.007	.001	−0.040	−0.062 to −0.018	<.001
Complications, ref = yes	0.074	−0.022 to 0.170	.130	−0.001	−0.031 to 0.029	.951	−0.051	−0.115 to 0.014	.124
Sedation, ref = deep
Mild	0.010	−0.039 to 0.060	.678	0.004	−0.012 to 0.019	.627	0.019	−0.013 to 0.052	.251
none	−0.023	−0.072 to 0.026	.361	0.001	−0.014 to 0.017	.868	0.024	−0.009 to 0.057	.151
Clean bowel, ref = yes	0.107	0.017 to 0.197	.020	0.024	−0.004 to 0.053	.091	0.001	−0.059 to 0.061	.982
Time to caecum, ref ≤ 10
10–20 min	0.009	−0.019 to 0.036	.536	0.007	−0.002 to 0.015	.135	0.010	−0.008 to 0.029	.266
>20 min	0.005	−0.039 to 0.050	.813	0.011	−0.003 to 0.025	.137	0.046	0.016 to 0.075	.002
Polyps or cancer, ref = yes	−0.008	−0.035 to 0.018	.525	0.006	−0.002 to 0.014	.160	0.033	0.016 to 0.051	<.001
R^2 = 0.0193; p = .001				R^2 = 0.0059; p = .02			R^2 = 0.0142; p ≤ .001

Positive βcoefficients indicate no time off work, that was not worth the effort, no participation in a re-examination compared with the reference.