ArticleBMJ open2014
Benefits and barriers to participation in colorectal cancer screening: a protocol for a systematic review and synthesis of qualitative studies.
Article in BMJ open, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 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
10 citing papers in PubMed.
- eCROPS-CA: a systematic approach toward effective and sustainable cancer prevention in rural China.BMC cancer · 2015Trial
- Assessment of Knowledge and Barriers to Colon Cancer Screening Among the General Public in the Qassim Region.Cureus · 2025Article
- Article
- Aspects of colorectal cancer screening, methods, age and gender.Journal of internal medicine · 2021Review
- The association between long-term conditions and uptake of population-based screening for colorectal cancer: results from two English cohort studies.Cancer management and research · 2018Article
- Designing clinical and genetic guidelines of colorectal cancer screening as an effective roadmap for risk management.Gastroenterology and hepatology from bed to bench · 2016Article
- Factors associated with completion of bowel cancer screening and the potential effects of simplifying the screening test algorithm.British journal of cancer · 2016Article
- Article
- Developments in Screening Tests and Strategies for Colorectal Cancer.BioMed research international · 2015Review
- "Finding the Right FIT": Rural Patient Preferences for Fecal Immunochemical Test (FIT) Characteristics.Journal of the American Board of Family Medicine : JABFMArticle
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
introductionColorectal cancer (CRC) poses a serious health problem worldwide. While screening is effective in reducing CRC mortality, participation in screening tests is generally suboptimal and social inequities in participation are frequently reported. The goal of this review is to synthesise factors that influence an individual's decision to participate in CRC screening, and to explore how those factors vary by sex, ethnicity and socioeconomic status. DATA SOURCES: A primary search of Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL), MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO, and a secondary search of grey literature and articles taken from references of included articles (from inception to July 2013).
designA systematic review and Meta-study synthesis of qualitative studies that address perceived benefits and barriers to participation in CRC screening tests among adults 50 years of age or older. REVIEW
methodsThe two-staged Meta-study methodology by Paterson will be used to conduct this review. In stage 1, similarities/differences, patterns and themes will be identified across three levels of analysis while preserving the context of original studies. In stage 2, synthesis will extend beyond the analysis to generate new theory of the phenomenon through a process called Meta-synthesis. DISCUSSION: This review offers to generate a framework to better understand benefits and barriers that affect decision-making to participate in CRC screening among different sectors of the population. This framework will be a relevant tool for policy makers in framing educational materials, for patient-centered communication, and for researchers interested in the science of equity. This review is registered in PROSPERO (registration number: CRD42013005025).
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.