ArticleBMJ open2016
Concerns, perceived need and competing priorities: a qualitative exploration of decision-making and non-participation in a population-based flexible sigmoidoscopy screening programme to prevent colorectal cancer.
Article in BMJ open, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 18 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled 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.
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
18 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 27 citations in OpenAlex.
- Exploring Whether and How People Experiencing High Deprivation Access Diagnostic Services: A Qualitative Systematic Review.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2024Pooled it
- Anxiety Associated with Colonoscopy and Flexible Sigmoidoscopy: A Systematic Review.The American journal of gastroenterology · 2018Pooled it
- Reasons why people do not attend NHS Health Checks: a systematic review and qualitative synthesis.The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners · 2018Pooled it
- Use of a GP-endorsed non-participant reminder letter to promote uptake of bowel scope screening: A randomised controlled trial in a hard-to-reach population.Preventive medicine · 2020Trial
- Use of Two Self-referral Reminders and a Theory-Based Leaflet to Increase the Uptake of Flexible Sigmoidoscopy in the English Bowel Scope Screening Program: Results From a Randomized Controlled Trial in London.Annals of behavioral medicine : a publication of the Society of Behavioral Medicine · 2018Trial
- The impact of patient-reported factors of endoscopic screening experience on attendance at future examinations and distal colorectal cancer incidence.BMC cancer · 2025Article
- Mental Health Morbidities and Time to Cancer Diagnosis Among Adults With Colon Cancer in England.JAMA network open · 2022Article
- The perspectives of survivors of Hodgkin lymphoma on lung cancer screening: A qualitative study.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2022Article
- Implementation of long-term non-participant reminders for flexible sigmoidoscopy screening.Preventive medicine reports · 2021Article
- A "Tea and Cookies" Approach: Co-designing Cancer Screening Interventions with Patients Living with Low Income.Journal of general internal medicine · 2020Article
- Comorbid chronic diseases and cancer diagnosis: disease-specific effects and underlying mechanisms.Nature reviews. Clinical oncology · 2019Review
- Non-attendance at urgent referral appointments for suspected cancer: a qualitative study to gain understanding from patients and GPs.The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners · 2019Article
- Article
- Article
- It's hard to reach the "hard-to-reach": the challenges of recruiting people who do not access preventative healthcare services into interview studies.International journal of qualitative studies on health and well-being · 2018Article
- Barriers to bowel scope (flexible sigmoidoscopy) screening: a comparison of non-responders, active decliners and non-attenders.BMC public health · 2018Article
- Waiting for diagnostic colonoscopy: a qualitative exploration of screening participants' experiences in a FIT-based colorectal cancer screening program.Patient preference and adherence · 2018Article
- The NHS Bowel Cancer Screening Program: current perspectives on strategies for improvement.Risk management and healthcare policy · 2017Review
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 at 5 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveOptimising uptake of colorectal cancer (CRC) screening is important to achieve projected health outcomes. Population-based screening by flexible sigmoidoscopy (FS) was introduced in England in 2013 (NHS Bowel scope screening). Little is known about reactions to the invitation to participate in FS screening, as offered within the context of the Bowel scope programme. We aimed to investigate responses to the screening invitation to inform understanding of decision-making, particularly in relation to non-participation in screening.
designQualitative analysis of semistructured in-depth interviews and written accounts. PARTICIPANTS AND
settingPeople from 31 general practices in the North East and East of England invited to attend FS screening as part of NHS Bowel scope screening programme were sent invitations to take part in the study. We purposively sampled interviewees to ensure a range of accounts in terms of beliefs, screening attendance, sex and geographical location.
results20 screeners and 25 non-screeners were interviewed. Written responses describing reasons for, and circumstances surrounding, non-participation from a further 28 non-screeners were included in the analysis. Thematic analysis identified a range of reactions to the screening invitation, decision-making processes and barriers to participation. These include a perceived or actual lack of need; inability to attend; anxiety and fear about bowel preparation, procedures or hospital; inability or reluctance to self-administer an enema; beliefs about low susceptibility to bowel cancer or treatment and understanding of harm and benefits. The strength, rather than presence, of concerns about the test and perceived need for reassurance were important in the decision to participate for screeners and non-screeners. Decision-making occurs within the context of previous experiences and day-to-day life.
conclusionsUnderstanding the reasons for non-participation in FS screening can help inform strategies to improve uptake and may be transferable to other screening programmes.
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.