ArticleCanadian family physician Medecin de famille canadien2013
ColonCancerCheck primary care invitation pilot project: patient perceptions.
Article in Canadian family physician Medecin de famille canadien, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- National Colorectal Cancer Screening Program in Lithuania: Description of the 5-Year Performance on Population Level.Cancers · 2021Article
- Evaluation of the colorectal cancer screening Programme in the Basque Country (Spain) and its effectiveness based on the Miscan-colon model.BMC public health · 2017Article
- Equity and practice issues in colorectal cancer screening: Mixed-methods study.Canadian family physician Medecin de famille canadien · 2016Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo describe the perceptions of those who received invitations to the ColonCancerCheck Primary Care Invitation Pilot (the Pilot) about the mailed invitation, colorectal cancer (CRC) screening in general, and their specific screening experiences.
designQualitative study with 6 focus group sessions, each 1.5 hours in length.
settingHamilton, Ont; Ottawa, Ont; and Thunder Bay, Ont.
participantsScreening-eligible adults, aged 50 years and older, who received a Pilot invitation for CRC screening.
methodsThe focus groups were conducted by a trained moderator and were audiorecorded and transcribed verbatim. The transcripts were analyzed using grounded-theory techniques facilitated by the use of electronic software. MAIN
findingsKey themes related to the invitation letter, the role of the family physician, direct mailing of the fecal occult blood testing (FOBT) kit, and alternate CRC screening promotion strategies were identified. Specifically, participants suggested the letter content should use stronger, more powerful language to capture the reader's attention. The importance of the family physician was endorsed, although participants favoured clarification of the physician and program roles in the actual mailed invitation. Participants expressed support for directly mailing FOBT kits to individuals, particularly those with successful previous test completion, and for communication of both negative and positive screening results.
conclusionThis study yielded a number of important findings including strategies to optimize letter content, support for directly mailed FOBT kits, and strategies to report results that might be highly relevant to other health programs where population-based CRC screening is being considered.
Indexed as
Identifiers
24336559PMC3860944What 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.