30 minutes vs <15 minutes 0.3 (95%CI = 0.2–0.7). The odds ratio for lack of time was 0.16 (95% IC 0.1–0.26). The effect was stronger if the hospital (0.03 95%CI = 0.01–0.1) rather than the general practitioner (0.3 95%CI = 0.2–0.6) was the provider. Twenty-two percent of controls were accompanied by someone to the test. Conclusion To increase compliance, screening programmes must involve test providers who are geographically close to the target population."/>
Skip to main content

Table 1 Logistic regression for determinants of non compliance, data from randomised controlled trial. All the Odds Ratios are adjusted by age, residence, provider and age if possible.

From: Understanding non-compliance to colorectal cancer screening: a case control study, nested in a randomised trial [ISRCTN83029072]

  total males females
  FOBT screening OR 95%CI FOBT screening OR 95%CI FOBT screening OR 95%CI
  no yes    no yes    no yes   
demographics             
Gender*             
   male 2269 1099 1 -         
   female 2585 1342 1.12 1.0–1.3         
Age*             
   50–54 1126 464 1.00 - 539 201 1.0 - 581 262 1.0  
   55–59 916 457 1.34 1.2–1.6 457 202 1.4 1.1–1.9 456 255 1.3 1.0–1.6
   60–64 950 449 1.27 1.1–1.5 440 194 1.4 1.1–1.9 510 255 1.1 0.89–1.4
   65–69 844 460 1.44 1.2–1.7 386 229 1.8 1.4–2.3 457 231 1.2 0.94–1.5
   70–74 738 326 1.22 1.0–1.5 317 140 1.5 1.1–2.0 421 186 1.1 0.82–1.4
logistics and demographics             
Residence*             
   Rome 2832 1285 1.00 - 1284 573 1.0 - 1540 710 1.0  
   towns with gastroenterology unit 1327 763 1.55 1.1–2.2 652 322 1.6 1.2–2.2 673 441 1.7 1.3–2.2
   other towns 566 333 1.13 0.73–1.7 265 174 1.2 0.73–1.9 299 159 1.1 0.70–1.8
logistics             
provider             
   hospital 3028 600 1.0   1388 276 1.0   1631 324 1.0  
   GP 1838 1843 6.0 5.3–6.8 881 823 5.7 4.7–6.8 954 1018 6.3 5.3–7.4
  1. * For 14 people gender was unknown, for 579 age was unknown, for 203 residence was unknown.