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

Key Takeaways for GI Nurses

• Patient adherence to screening recommendations significantly impacts the cost-effectiveness of both FIT and colonoscopy-based screening programs, requiring nurses to prioritize patient education and follow-up strategies
• FIT screening may offer superior cost-effectiveness in populations with lower uptake rates, suggesting nurses should tailor their approach based on patient demographics and compliance history
• Understanding the economic implications of different screening modalities helps nurses advocate for appropriate resource allocation and program design within their endoscopy units
• Screening program success depends not just on test accuracy but on real-world implementation factors that nurses directly influence through patient interaction and care coordination

Clinical Relevance

This cost-effectiveness analysis provides crucial insights for GI nurses involved in colorectal cancer screening programs. As frontline healthcare providers, nurses play a pivotal role in patient education, screening coordination, and follow-up care—all factors that directly influence uptake rates. The study's findings suggest that the relative value of FIT versus colonoscopy screening varies significantly based on patient adherence patterns, which has immediate implications for how nurses counsel patients and structure their screening protocols.

For endoscopy units, these findings support the need for comprehensive pre-procedure patient support programs. Nurses can use this evidence to advocate for resources dedicated to patient navigation services, reminder systems, and barrier reduction strategies. The research underscores that optimal screening outcomes require more than just offering the "gold standard" colonoscopy—they require thoughtful consideration of patient-specific factors that influence compliance. This shifts nursing focus from simply scheduling procedures to developing individualized screening plans that account for patient preferences, barriers, and likelihood of adherence.

From a unit operations perspective, understanding cost-effectiveness across varying uptake rates helps nurses contribute to strategic planning discussions about screening program design. This knowledge enables nurses to provide valuable input on workflow optimization, patient triage protocols, and resource allocation decisions that balance clinical effectiveness with economic sustainability.

Bottom Line

This study reinforces that successful colorectal cancer screening depends as much on patient adherence as on test characteristics, highlighting the critical role GI nurses play in optimizing screening outcomes through patient education, barrier identification, and individualized care planning—making nursing intervention a key determinant of screening program cost-effectiveness regardless of the chosen modality.