Very remote areas

This section compares performance indicator results between Major cities and Very remote areas only. However, as noted in ‘Performance of the screening program’, both Remote and Very remote areas had poorer participation and higher positivity rates than all other areas.

Australians living in Very remote areas had a lower participation rate than those living in Major cities. They also experienced a higher screening positivity rate than Australians living in Major cities yet had a lower follow-up diagnostic assessment rate and a longer median time between a positive screen and an assessment.

Australians living in Very remote areas had a lower age-standardised bowel cancer incidence rate and a lower age-standardised mortality rate compared with those living in Major cities (Table 4.2).

Table 4.2: Summary of performance indicators for Very remote and Major cities areas

Indicator

Summary of performance indicators for Very remote areas compared with Major cities

Very remote

Major cities

PI 1 - Participation rate

Lower participation rate

25.0%

41.4%

PI 2 - Screening positivity rate

Higher screening positivity rate

8%

6%

PI 3 - Diagnostic assessment rate

Lower diagnostic assessment follow-up rate

82%

86%

PI 4 - Time between positive screen and diagnostic assessment

Longer median time

83 days

59 days

PI 9 - Adverse events –hospital admission

Comparison not published

n.p.

n.p.

PI 10 - Incidence of bowel cancer

Lower age-standardised incidence rate

98 per 100,000

109 per 100,000

PI 11 - Mortality from bowel cancer

Lower age-standardised mortality rate

21 per 100,000

24 per 100,000


References

ACSQHC (Australian Commission on Safety and Quality in Health Care) (2020) Colonoscopy Clinical Care Standard, Australian Commission on Safety and Quality in Health Care, Sydney, accessed 14 May 2025.