Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26062732›Full record

ArticleBMC public health2015

Factors associated with use and non-use of the Fecal Immunochemical Test (FIT) kit for Colorectal Cancer Screening in Response to a 2012 outreach screening program: a survey study.

Nancy P Gordon, Beverly B Green

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC public health, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 24 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
24citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
1.3field-weighted citation impact, top 19% of its field
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

24 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 48 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. A Systematic Review of Repeat Fecal Occult Blood Tests for Colorectal Cancer Screening.Cancer epidemiology, biomarkers & prevention : a publication of the American Association for Cancer Research, cosponsored by the American Society of Preventive Oncology · 2020
    Pooled it
  2. Video brochures in a mailed fecal immunochemical test outreach program provide cancer screening information in a user-friendly format for rural Appalachian community members.The Journal of rural health : official journal of the American Rural Health Association and the National Rural Health Care Association · 2024
    Trial
  3. Trial
  4. Review
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Epidemiology and zoonotic transmission ofFrontiers in microbiology · 2023
    Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Program Components and Results From an Organized Colorectal Cancer Screening Program Using Annual Fecal Immunochemical Testing.Clinical gastroenterology and hepatology : the official clinical practice journal of the American Gastroenterological Association · 2022
    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

2 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Nancy P GordonDivision of Research, Kaiser Permanente Medical Care Program, 2000 Broadway, Oakland, CA, 94611, USA. nancy.gordon@kp.org.
Beverly B GreenGroup Health Research Institute, Group Health Cooperative, Seattle, WA, USA. greenb.@ghc.org.
Group Health Cooperative · USKaiser Permanente · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe one-sample fecal immunochemical test (FIT) is gaining popularity for colorectal cancer (CRC) screening of average-risk people. However, uptake and annual use remain suboptimal.

methodsIn 2013, we mailed questionnaires to three groups of nonHispanic White, Black, and Latino Kaiser Permanente Northern California (KPNC) members ages 52-76 who received FIT kits in 2010-2012: Continuers did the FIT all 3 years; Converts in 2012, but not 2010 or 2011; and Nonusers in none of the 3 years. The questionnaires covered social influences, perceived CRC risk, reasons for using (Continuers, Converts) or avoiding using (Nonusers) the FIT, and recommendations for improving the kit.

resultsContinuers (n = 607, response rate 67.5%), Converts (n = 317, response rate 35.6%), and Nonusers (n = 215, response rate 21.1%) did not differ in perceived risk or family history of CRC, but Nonusers were less likely than Continuers and Converts to know someone who had polyps or CRC. Continuers, Converts, and Nonusers did not differ in social network encouragement of CRC screening, but did differ in believing that it was very important that they be screened (88.3%, 68.4%, 47.7%) and that their medical team thought it very important that they be screened (88.6%, 79.9%, 53.9%). Approximately half of Continuers and Converts completed the FIT to please their doctor. Converts were less likely than Continuers to use the FIT to "make sure they were OK" (53.7% vs. 72.6%) or "protect their health" (46.1% vs. 76.4%). Nearly half of Converts completed the FIT out of guilt. Approximately half of FIT kit users suggested adding a disposable glove, extra paper, and wider-mouth tube to the kit. Nonusers' reasons for not using the FIT included discomfort, disgust, or embarrassment (59.6%); thinking it unnecessary (32.9%); fatalism/fear (15.5%); and thinking it too difficult to use (14.5%), but <10% did not want CRC screening at all.

conclusionsNonusers and irregular users of the FIT are less intrinsically motivated to get CRC screening than long-term users and more averse to preparing their stool sample. Changes to the FIT kit to address discomfort and difficulty factors might improve uptake and continued use.

Indexed as

Mass ScreeningPatient Acceptance of Health CareAgedCaliforniaColorectal NeoplasmsEarly Detection of CancerFecesFemaleHealth PromotionHematologic TestsHumansMaleMiddle AgedPostal ServiceReagent Kits, DiagnosticSurveys and QuestionnairesReagent Kits, Diagnostic

Identifiers

PMID26062732
PMCPMC4462185
OpenAlexW1589012359

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.