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 2 Logistic regression for determinants of non compliance, data from questionnaire. All the Odds Ratios are adjusted by age, gender and provider.

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

  non compliant compliant OR* 95% CI
demographics      
   employment status      
currently employed 69 91 1   
homemaker 76 223 2.2 1.3 3.7
retired 53 81 1.1 0.6 1.9
unemployed 2 5 1.8 0.3 9.6
m.i. 27 10    
psychological and cultural      
   educational level      
0–4 years of study 18 17 1   
5–7 years of study 53 119 2.5 1.2 5.2
8–12 years of study 35 83 2.5 1.1 5.6
high school graduate 49 117 2.7 1.3 6.0
university 24 46 2.1 0.9 5.1
m.i. 48 28    
   Gastrointestinal symptoms      
no 198 291 1   
yes 29 119 2.7 1.7 4.2
   CRC cases among relatives      
No 212 351 1   
yes 15 51 1.8 1.0 3.2
logistics      
   lack of time 69 25 0.2 0.1 0.3
   distance      
1–15 min 122 301 1   
15–30 44 75 0.8 0.5 1.3
>30 21 15 0.3 0.2 0.7
m.i 40 19    
   type of transportation      
public 31 29 1   
private 117 218 2.1 1.2 3.7
on foot 67 159 2.1 1.1 4.1
m.i. 12 4    
Analysis stratified by provider:      
in the hospital arm      
   lack of time 32 4 0.04 0.01 0.12
in the GP arm      
   lack of time 37 21 0.3 0.2 0.6