ArticleBMC medical informatics and decision making2017
The CRISP colorectal cancer risk prediction tool: an exploratory study using simulated consultations in Australian primary care.
Article in BMC medical informatics and decision making, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 23 papers, 2 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
23 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Acceptability and perceptions of personalised risk-based cancer screening among health-care professionals and the general public: a systematic review and meta-analysis.The Lancet. Public health · 2025Pooled it
- Using Normalization Process Theory in feasibility studies and process evaluations of complex healthcare interventions: a systematic review.Implementation science : IS · 2018Pooled it
- Using an SMS to improve bowel cancer screening: the acceptability and feasibility of a multifaceted intervention.Family practice · 2025Trial
- Exploring a novel method for optimising the implementation of a colorectal cancer risk prediction tool into primary care: a qualitative study.Implementation science : IS · 2022Trial
- Stratified/risk-based screening for colorectal cancer in the UK: an overview.Colorectal cancer · 2025Review
- Breast and bowel cancers diagnosed in people 'too young to have cancer': A blueprint for research using family and twin studies.Genetic epidemiology · 2024Article
- Implementation considerations for risk-tailored cancer screening in the population: A scoping review.Preventive medicine · 2024Article
- Development and Validation of Risk Prediction Models for Colorectal Cancer in Patients with Symptoms.Journal of personalized medicine · 2023Article
- Workload and workflow implications associated with the use of electronic clinical decision support tools used by health professionals in general practice: a scoping review.BMC primary care · 2023Article
- Acceptability and appropriateness of a risk-tailored organised melanoma screening program: Qualitative interviews with key informants.PloS one · 2023Article
- Article
- A scoping review of risk-stratified bowel screening: current evidence, future directions.Cancer causes & control : CCC · 2022Article
- The Impact of Palliative Care and Nursing Intervention on the Psychology and Quality of Life of Elderly Patients with Colorectal Cancer.Journal of oncology · 2022Article
- Article
- Development and user-testing of a brief decision aid for aspirin as a preventive approach alongside colorectal cancer screening.BMC medical informatics and decision making · 2021Article
- The classification capability of the Asia Pacific Colorectal Screening score in Korea: an analysis of the Cancer Screenee Cohort.Epidemiology and health · 2021Article
- A risk-stratified approach to colorectal cancer prevention and diagnosis.Nature reviews. Gastroenterology & hepatology · 2020Review
- Making change last? Exploring the value of sustainability approaches in healthcare: a scoping review.Health research policy and systems · 2020Article
- The Impact of a Comprehensive Risk Prediction Model for Colorectal Cancer on a Population Screening Program.JNCI cancer spectrum · 2020Article
- Artificial intelligence with multi-functional machine learning platform development for better healthcare and precision medicine.Database : the journal of biological databases and curation · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundIn Australia, screening for colorectal cancer (CRC) with colonoscopy is meant to be reserved for people at increased risk, however, currently there is a mismatch between individuals' risk of CRC and the type of CRC screening they receive. This paper describes the development and optimisation of a Colorectal cancer RISk Prediction tool ('CRISP') for use in primary care. The aim of the CRISP tool is to increase risk-appropriate CRC screening.
methodsCRISP development was informed by previous experience with developing risk tools for use in primary care and a systematic review of the evidence. A CRISP prototype was used in simulated consultations by general practitioners (GPs) with actors as patients. GPs were interviewed to explore their experience of using CRISP, and practice nurses (PNs) and practice managers (PMs) were interviewed after a demonstration of CRISP. Transcribed interviews and video footage of the 'consultations' were qualitatively analyzed. Themes arising from the data were mapped onto Normalization Process Theory (NPT).
resultsFourteen GPs, nine PNs and six PMs were recruited from 12 clinics. Results were described using the four constructs of NPT: 1) Coherence: Clinicians understood the rationale behind CRISP, particularly since they were familiar with using risk tools for other conditions; 2) Cognitive participation: GPs welcomed the opportunity CRISP provided to discuss healthy and unhealthy behaviors with their patients, but many GPs challenged the screening recommendation generated by CRISP; 3) Collective Action: CRISP disrupted clinician-patient flow if the GP was less comfortable with computers. GP consultation time was a major implementation barrier and overall consensus was that PNs have more capacity and time to use CRISP effectively; 4) Reflexive monitoring: Limited systematic monitoring of new interventions is a potential barrier to the sustainable embedding of CRISP.
conclusionsCRISP has the potential to improve risk-appropriate CRC screening in primary care but was considered more likely to be successfully implemented as a nurse-led intervention.
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.