ArticleBMC cancer2015
Micro actions in colorectal cancer screening participation: a population-based survey study.
Article in BMC cancer, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Text-message Reminders in Colorectal Cancer Screening (TRICCS): a randomised controlled trial.British journal of cancer · 2017Trial
- A Population Survey on Barriers and Facilitators to Breast Cancer Screening Based on the Theoretical Domains Framework.Behavioral sciences (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- "It's cancer screening after all". Barriers to cervical and colorectal cancer screening and attitudes to promotion of self-sampling kits upon attendance for breast cancer screening.Journal of medical screening · 2023Article
- Self-sampling for cervical screening offered at the point of invitation: A cross-sectional study of preferences in England.Journal of medical screening · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundLow uptake of colorectal cancer (CRC) screening is a cause for concern. This study explored people's anticipated response to receiving the test kit to shed light on past screening uptake and help inform future interventions to increase participation.
methodsFace-to-face interviews were conducted with respondents living in England who were eligible for CRC screening as part of a population-based 'omnibus' survey. Respondents were asked what they would do ('micro actions') if they received a CRC screening test kit through the mail (apart from completing it or not), and their unprompted responses were coded (multiple codes allowed). Past 'ever' uptake and screening intention were also recorded. The final analysis included 1237 respondents aged 60-70.
resultsRespondents who said that they would decide after some thought' (p < .001), 'put [it] aside to deal with later' (p < .001), 'put it on the "to do list/ pile"' (p < .05) or 'discuss it with a health care professional' (p < .01) had decreased odds of having participated. Those who said they would 'read the instruction leaflet' (p < .001), 'put the kit near the toilet' (p < .001) or 'decide when to do the test' (p < .05) were more likely to have taken part in CRC screening. With the exception of 'decide when to do the test' and 'discuss it with a health care professional', all associations with past uptake remained significant after adjusting for other micro actions and screening intention. 'Make a note somewhere (to remind myself)' was mentioned by less than 1 % of respondents.
conclusionsDelay-causing and preparatory micro actions were associated with past CRC screening uptake. Self-regulatory micro actions (e.g. making a note to remind oneself) were rarely mentioned as responses to receiving a screening invitation. Interventions aimed at reducing delay and facilitating preparatory and self-regulatory behaviours might help increase uptake. The behaviour-focused survey method is a promising avenue for future health behaviour research.
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.