While we were unable to collect data on these characteristics, it is possible that non-consenters were less health conscious and had lower health literacy than participants. This may have led to an overestimation of the proportion who recalled discussing family history
of CRC with their doctor. It is possible that recall biases may have affected participants’ ability to accurately recall the timing of discussions with health professionals. However, bounded recall techniques including cues such as diagnosis of a family member, or receipt of the letter from the Cancer Council about the study were used, and may have facilitated recall. Our data indicate that despite the evidence that doctor endorsement is a key factor in the uptake of CRC screening, the majority of FDRs of people with CRC do not recall being asked by a health professional about their family history. While Talazoparib other studies have identified this as a potential gap, ours is the first to do so in a population-based sample of FDRs of people with CRC. This suggests that
even those who are at higher risk of CRC (i.e. those with an FDR with CRC) are unlikely to recall having discussed this risk factor with a health professional. There is a need to identify the most appropriate method of providing FDRs information RO4929097 mw about potential risks of developing CRC that is tailored to their Dapagliflozin level of risk. Given that there were many cases
where discussion of family history did not occur following a family member’s diagnosis, the development of systems to prompt initiation of this in primary care is warranted. Other approaches using the IC diagnosis as the catalyst for providing screening information to FDRs through cancer registries [14] and [21], and through cancer treatment centres [22] should be investigated. Despite influence of primary care physicians being commonly acknowledged as a strong indicator for screening behaviour, advice from surgeons and other cancer specialists may also be considered as an appropriate strategy to reach FDRs through patients and encourage consultation with their GP regarding CRC risk [23] and [24]. Results indicate that strategies designed to promote discussion of family risk and screening recommendations for CRC need to be appropriate in reaching subgroups who were less likely to recall having had such discussions in the past: those with less education, those who are less worried about developing CRC, and those with lower risk of CRC. For example, strategies may need to emphasise the need to discuss CRC risk even if you only have one affected relative, or alternatively GPs could adopt an opportunistic approach whereby screening recommendations are provided to all appropriate patients [25].