ArticleHealth expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy2015
Attitudes and beliefs of non-participants in a population-based screening programme for colorectal cancer.
Article in Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 34 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
34 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Implementation Strategies for Interventions Aiming to Increase Participation in Mail-Out Bowel Cancer Screening Programs: A Realist Review.Frontiers in oncology · 2020Pooled it
- Trial
- Colon Capsule Endoscopy in the Routine Diagnostic Pathway for Colorectal Diseases (DanCap): Protocol for a Cluster-Allocated Crossover Trial.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Improving breast and colorectal cancer screening information through co-design with underserved groups in an urban area.BMC primary care · 2026Article
- Co-designing planning interventions to facilitate participation in mail-out bowel cancer screening.BMC public health · 2024Article
- Article
- Impact of family history of cancer on colorectal cancer screening: a propensity score-matched analysis from the Health Information National Trends Survey (HINTS).Journal of the Egyptian National Cancer Institute · 2023Article
- Bowel cancer knowledge gaps evident among Irish residents: results of a national questionnaire survey.Irish journal of medical science · 2023Article
- Barriers for Participation in the Danish Colorectal Cancer Screening Program: a Qualitative Study.Journal of gastrointestinal cancer · 2023Article
- [Actitudes e imágenes sociales sobre el cribado de cáncer colorrectal. Una aproximación exploratoria mediante grupos de discusión.]Revista espanola de salud publica · 2023Article
- Decision-making on colorectal cancer screening in Curaçao - interviews with the target population.BMC public health · 2023Article
- Subsequent participation in organized FIT based screening following screen-derived colonoscopyPreventive medicine reports · 2023Article
- Development and psychometric evaluation of the Aversion to Bowel Cancer Screening Scale.European journal of cancer care · 2022Article
- A health action process approach for developing invitee endorsed interventions to increase mail-out bowel cancer screening.Applied psychology. Health and well-being · 2022Article
- The integrated screening action model (I-SAM): A theory-based approach to inform intervention development.Preventive medicine reports · 2021Article
- Sociodemographics and their impacts on risk factor awareness and beliefs about cancer and screening: results from a cross-sectional study in Newfoundland and Labrador.BMC public health · 2020Article
- Decision-making styles in the context of colorectal cancer screening.BMC psychology · 2020Article
- Barriers and facilitators for colorectal cancer screening in a low-income urban community in Mexico City.Implementation science communications · 2020Article
- Article
- Factors Related to Non-participation in the Basque Country Colorectal Cancer Screening Programme.Frontiers in public health · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundUptake of colorectal cancer screening programmes needs to be improved or at least maintained in order to achieve projected reductions in mortality and morbidity. Understanding the origins of non-participation in screening is therefore important.
objectiveTo explore the beliefs and experiences of individuals who had not responded either to their screening invitation or reminder.
designA qualitative study using in-depth interviews with non-participants from England's population-based colorectal cancer screening programme. Data collection and analysis were carried out using a grounded theory approach, with an emphasis on the constant comparison method, and continued until saturation (27 interviews).
findingsThe interviews provided an in-depth understanding of a range of reasons and circumstances surrounding non-participation in screening, including contextual and environmental influences as well as factors specific to the screening test. Non-participation in screening was not necessarily associated with negative attitudes towards screening or a decision to not return a kit. Reasons for non-participation in screening included not feeling that participation is personally necessary, avoiding or delaying decision making, and having some degree of intention to take part but failing to do so because of practicalities, conflicting priorities or external circumstances. Beliefs, awareness and intention change over time. DISCUSSION AND
conclusionsA range of approaches may be required to improve screening uptake. Some non-participants may already have a degree of intention to take part in screening in the future, and this group may be more responsive to interventions based on professional endorsement, repeat invitations, reminders and aids to making the test more practical.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.