Colorectal cancer (CRC) screening participation is historically lower among Black American populations. The study assessed acceptability of blood-based colorectal cancer screening, a less invasive testing option that could reduce barriers such as stool collection and bowel preparation. Investigators targeted church-based community settings to evaluate preferences and factors associated with choosing blood-based screening among Black adults aged 45 to 75.
A cross-sectional survey was conducted between October 2023 and January 2024 at three Black churches in metropolitan Atlanta, Georgia. The study enrolled 101 adults aged 45–75 years. Survey items captured demographic information, CRC screening history, access to healthcare, and attitudes toward blood-based CRC screening. The research design and analysis focus reported in the source comprise descriptive reporting of preference prevalence and investigation of associations between stated preference and participant characteristics.
Participants were recruited from three Black churches in a metropolitan setting in Atlanta. The reported analytic sample included 101 adults between 45 and 75 years of age. Beyond age range and recruitment context, detailed participant-level demographic or socioeconomic breakdowns in the abstract were not provided. The authors noted that preference results were evaluated against demographic and socioeconomic characteristics, screening history, and healthcare access variables.
Among the 101 surveyed participants, 72 individuals (71.3%) expressed a preference for blood-based CRC screening. This majority preference is presented as an overall finding without subgroup prevalence estimates in the abstract. The authors interpret this level of preference as evidence that blood-based testing may be acceptable to many Black adults in community settings.
Participants who preferred blood-based screening cited multiple reasons. The most commonly reported motivator was ease of testing, endorsed by 83.3% of those preferring blood-based tests. Other frequently reported reasons included avoidance of stool collection (38.9%), avoidance of bowel preparation (36.1%), perceived fewer side effects (34.7%), and perceived lower risk (33.3%).
Needle-related concerns were reported as a factor associated with non-preference. The only factor that was statistically associated with not preferring blood-based screening in the analyses reported was concern about needles (p = 0.034).
The study reports that preference for blood-based CRC screening was not associated with participants' demographic or socioeconomic characteristics, prior CRC screening history, or measures of healthcare access. Needle concerns were the sole variable showing a significant association with lower preference. Additional details about the analytic methods, covariates tested, effect sizes, or confidence intervals were not provided in the abstract.
The Institutional Review Board of Morehouse School of Medicine granted ethical approval for the research. The authors confirm that participant consent procedures and appropriate oversight were followed. The abstract indicates that all data produced in the study are available upon reasonable request to the authors.
In this church-based convenience sample of Black adults in Atlanta, a majority preferred blood-based CRC screening. The authors propose that offering blood-based colorectal cancer screening may enhance screening participation by increasing convenience and avoiding procedures perceived as unpleasant, such as stool collection and bowel preparation. Given that preference was not associated with measured demographic or access variables, the authors suggest the modality could have broad acceptability within similar community settings.
However, needle concerns emerged as a barrier for a subset of participants and were associated with non-preference. This identifies a potential implementation consideration: if blood-based testing is offered as an alternative to stool- or procedure-based screening, programs should address concerns about phlebotomy or provide options for those uncomfortable with needles.
The report is a preprint and has not undergone peer review; authors explicitly note it should not yet guide clinical practice. The sample was recruited from three churches in metropolitan Atlanta, which may limit generalizability to other Black communities or settings. The abstract provides limited methodological detail in several areas (for example, sampling approach, response rate, full demographic breakdowns, and multivariable analysis details). These omissions in the abstract mean some specifics of study conduct and analytic rigor were not available from the source document.
In this community-based survey of Black adults aged 45–75 years, most participants preferred blood-based CRC screening, with perceived ease of testing as the dominant reason. Needle concerns were the only factor significantly associated with lower preference. The authors conclude that blood-based screening could improve CRC screening participation through increased convenience, while recognizing the preprint status of the report and the need for more detailed and peer-reviewed evidence to inform practice decisions.