Evidence map›Paper›PMID 24268129›Full record

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.

Nicola J Hall, Greg P Rubin, Christina Dobson, David Weller, Jane Wardle, Mary Ritchie, Colin J Rees

Abstract read
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
34citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

34 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors.

Nicola J HallSchool of Medicine, Pharmacy and Health, Durham University, Stockton on Tees, UK.
Greg P RubinSchool of Medicine, Pharmacy and Health, Durham University, Stockton on Tees, UK.
Christina DobsonSchool of Medicine, Pharmacy and Health, Durham University, Stockton on Tees, UK.
David WellerCancer Research Centre, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, UK.
Jane WardleHealth Behaviour Research Centre, University College London, London, UK.
Mary RitchieSouth of Tyne NHS Bowel Cancer Screening Centre, Gateshead, UK.
Colin J ReesSouth Tyneside NHS Foundation Trust, South Shields, UK.

Funding

Cancer Research UK 14134Department of Health PB-PG-0609-19082Medical Research Council MR/K02325X/1
6 · The paper itself

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

Early Detection of CancerHealth Knowledge, Attitudes, PracticeOccult BloodAgedColorectal NeoplasmsEnglandFemaleGrounded TheoryHealth BehaviorHumansInterviews as TopicMaleMass ScreeningMiddle AgedQualitative Researchattitudesbehaviourbeliefsbowel cancer screeningcolorectal cancer screeningnon-participation

Identifiers

PMID24268129
PMCPMC5060871

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.