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, highlighting the critical role nurses play in patient education and adherence
• FIT-based screening programs may offer superior cost-effectiveness in populations with lower screening participation rates, informing nursing advocacy for appropriate screening pathways
• Understanding comparative cost-effectiveness data enables nurses to better counsel patients on screening options while considering individual patient factors and likelihood of compliance
• Screening program success depends heavily on patient participation rates, emphasizing the importance of nursing-led outreach, education, and follow-up protocols

Clinical Relevance

This cost-effectiveness analysis provides valuable insights for endoscopy nurses involved in screening program development and patient care coordination. As frontline healthcare providers, GI nurses frequently encounter patients who may be hesitant about colorectal cancer screening or who have varying levels of health literacy and access to care. Understanding how uptake rates affect the economic viability of different screening approaches allows nurses to tailor their patient education strategies and advocate for screening programs that maximize both clinical outcomes and resource utilization within their healthcare systems.

The findings have direct implications for nursing practice in endoscopy units, particularly in pre-procedure counseling and screening program coordination. Nurses can use this evidence to support discussions with patients about screening options, helping to identify which modality might be most appropriate based on individual patient factors that influence compliance. This research also supports the development of nursing protocols that prioritize interventions to improve screening uptake rates, as the study demonstrates that participation rates are a critical variable in determining program effectiveness.

From an operational perspective, this analysis can inform nursing leadership decisions about resource allocation and staffing for different types of screening programs. Understanding the cost-effectiveness relationship between FIT and colonoscopy-based screening across varying uptake scenarios helps nurse managers and clinical coordinators make evidence-based recommendations for program structure, patient flow management, and follow-up care protocols that optimize both patient outcomes and departmental efficiency.

Bottom Line

This cost-effectiveness analysis reinforces that successful colorectal cancer screening programs depend as much on patient participation as on the screening method itself, positioning GI nurses as key stakeholders in program success through their roles in patient education, adherence support, and screening coordination. The research validates the importance of nursing interventions that improve uptake rates and provides economic evidence to support flexible, patient-centered approaches to screening that match the most cost-effective modality to individual patient circumstances and compliance likelihood.