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 3 Reason for non compliance

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

reasons for non compliance to the screening N %
total 227  
none declared 89 39.2
*lack of time 70 30.8
*feel healthy 18 7.9
ill 14 6.2
*it was impossible to contact the provider 9 4.0
already covered 9 4.0
do not want 7 3.1
*anxiety over outcome 6 2.6
*the letter was not clear about what I was expected to do 6 2.6
*embarassed by test execution 6 2.6
away from home during study 4 1.8
*fear about risks of the test 3 1.3
oversight 3 1.3
*negatively advised 1 0.4
bleeding (hemorroids) 1 0.4
  1. * Proposed aswers