Colorectal Cancer Screening and Patient Experience
Summary
Colorectal cancer (CRC) remains a leading cause of cancer‐related morbidity and mortality worldwide. Population‐based screening programmes employ non‐invasive tests such as faecal occult blood testing to detect early lesions, with colonoscopy used to confirm diagnosis and remove polyps. Although screening demonstrably reduces incidence and death, uptake varies substantially across regions and demographics. Patient experience—including physical discomfort, psychological responses to false‐positive results, and the clarity of information provided—shapes adherence and long‐term engagement. Anxiety and altered self‐perception following indeterminate or false‐positive findings can persist, influencing future participation. Decision‐making is governed not only by evidence of benefit and risk but also by personal values, social norms and intuitive judgments. Tailored communication, shared decision‐making tools and digital reminders are emerging as strategies to enhance participation while mitigating adverse psychosocial and quality‐of‐life impacts.
Research from Nature Portfolio
No recent Nature Portfolio content available.
Colorectal Cancer Screening and Patient Experience publication trend
The graph below shows the total number of articles in colorectal cancer screening and patient experience across all publications each year (not limited to Nature Index journals).
Technical terms
Colonoscopy: Endoscopic examination of the large intestine to visualise and remove polyps or investigate bleeding.
Faecal occult blood test (FOBT): Non‐invasive assay detecting hidden blood in stool as an indicator of colorectal abnormalities.
Health‐related quality of life (HRQoL): Multi‐dimensional concept reflecting physical, emotional and social well‐being in relation to health conditions.
Informed decision‐making: Process whereby individuals understand benefits, risks and alternatives to make healthcare choices aligned with their values.
QLU‐C10D: Cancer‐specific preference‐based instrument derived from the EORTC QLQ‐C30 for calculating quality‐adjusted life‐year utilities.
References
- Psychosocial consequences of receiving false-positive colorectal cancer screening results: a qualitative study. Scandinavian Journal of Primary Health Care (2019).
- Autonomous and informed decision-making: The case of colorectal cancer screening. PLOS ONE (2020).
- Health utility assessments in individuals undergoing diagnostic and surveillance colonoscopy: improved discrimination with a cancer-specific scale. Cancer Causes & Control (2023).
Turn complex research questions into confident strategic decisions
When you're under pressure to set direction, justify investment, or understand your competitive position, you need more than raw data — you need trusted insights you can act on.
Benchmark your performance against global peers using robust, methodologically sound analysis.
Combine quantitative metrics with qualitative expert insight to uncover strengths, gaps and emerging opportunities.
Gain tailored, decision-ready recommendations aligned to your strategic priorities.
Talk to us to learn more about our data dashboards and bespoke strategy reports.
Grow research skills, confidence and careers with training built for every stage of the research lifecycle.
Developed with Nature Portfolio journal Editors and internationally renowned experts. Discover three ways to learn:
Self-paced, online courses in convenient bite-sized units, covering key skills across scientific writing, publishing, grant writing, data analysis, and more.
Expert trainer-led workshops with hands-on exercises and real-time feedback across core research skills, delivered via interactive group sessions.
Editor-led workshops combining core principles in writing and publishing, personalised 1:1 feedback from Nature Portfolio Editors and hands-on exercises.
Explore course catalogues and workshop agendas, enquire about the options or request institutional pricing.