Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Fecal Immunochemical Test- and Colonoscopy-based Colorectal Cancer Screening across Varying Uptake Rates.

Key Takeaways for GI Nurses

• Patient uptake rates significantly influence the cost-effectiveness of different colorectal cancer screening modalities, making patient education and engagement critical nursing responsibilities
• Understanding the economic implications of FIT versus colonoscopy screening helps nurses advocate for appropriate resource allocation and staffing in their units
• Both screening methods demonstrate cost-effectiveness benefits, reinforcing the importance of supporting any screening program that patients will actually complete
• Variable uptake rates across different screening approaches may require flexible nursing protocols and patient communication strategies

Clinical Relevance

This cost-effectiveness analysis provides valuable insights for GI and endoscopy nurses working to optimize colorectal cancer screening programs. Understanding how patient participation rates affect the economic viability of different screening approaches helps nurses better advocate for resources, staffing levels, and program design within their departments. When uptake rates vary significantly between FIT and colonoscopy screening, nursing teams must be prepared to adapt their patient education strategies and workflow processes to support whichever method patients are most likely to complete.

The findings have direct implications for nursing practice patterns and unit operations. Nurses involved in pre-procedure education, screening coordination, and follow-up care can use this evidence to support discussions about program sustainability and effectiveness with administrators and physicians. Additionally, understanding the cost-effectiveness relationship between screening methods and uptake rates enables nurses to more effectively counsel patients about their options, emphasizing that the best screening test is the one the patient will actually complete and repeat as recommended.

From a professional development perspective, this research underscores the expanding role of GI nurses in population health management and healthcare economics. Nurses who understand these cost-effectiveness principles can contribute more meaningfully to quality improvement initiatives, screening program development, and interdisciplinary discussions about optimizing patient outcomes while managing healthcare costs. This knowledge positions nursing professionals as valuable contributors to strategic planning and evidence-based practice implementation.

Bottom Line

This cost-effectiveness analysis reinforces that successful colorectal cancer screening programs depend heavily on patient participation rates, making nursing roles in patient education, engagement, and follow-up absolutely critical to program success. GI nurses should focus on supporting whichever screening method patients will actually complete, while using economic evidence to advocate for adequate resources and staffing to maintain high-quality, sustainable screening programs.