Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28298185›Full record

ArticleBMC family practice2017

General practitioners' perceptions of population based bowel screening and their influence on practice: a qualitative study.

Greer Dawson, Melanie Crane, Claudine Lyons, Anna Burnham, Tara Bowman, Donna Perez, Joanne Travaglia

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC family practice, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
11citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
1.3field-weighted citation impact, top 18% 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

11 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 22 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. 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

7 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.

Greer DawsonSax Institute, Level 13, Building 10, 235 Jones Street, Ultimo, NSW, Australia, 2007. greer.dawson@saxinstitute.org.au.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-9876-6319
Melanie CranePrevention Research Collaboration, The Charles Perkins Centre, Level 6, The Hub, School of Public Health, University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW, Australia, 2006.
Claudine LyonsNSW Department of Premier and Cabinet, 52 Martin Place, Sydney, NSW, Australia, 2000.
Anna BurnhamCancer Institute NSW, Australian Technology Park, Level 9, 8 Central Avenue, Sydney, NSW, Australia, 2015.
Tara BowmanCancer Institute NSW, Australian Technology Park, Level 9, 8 Central Avenue, Sydney, NSW, Australia, 2015.
Donna PerezCancer Institute NSW, Australian Technology Park, Level 9, 8 Central Avenue, Sydney, NSW, Australia, 2015.
Joanne TravagliaFaculty of Health, University of Technology Sydney, Level 7, 235 Jones Street, Sydney, NSW, Australia, 2007.
Cancer Institute of New South Wales · AUThe University of Sydney · AUUniversity of Technology Sydney · AUUNSW Sydney · AU

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundAlthough largely preventable, Australia has one of the highest rates of bowel cancer in the world. General Practitioners (GPs) have an important role to play in prevention and early detection of bowel cancer, however in Australia this is yet to be optimised and participation remains low. This study sought to understand how GPs' perceptions of bowel screening influence their attitudes to, and promotion of the faecal occult blood test (FOBT), to identify opportunities to enhance their role.

methodsInterviews were conducted with 31 GPs from metropolitan and regional New South Wales (NSW), Australia. Discussions canvassed GPs' perceptions of their role in bowel screening and the national screening program; perceptions of screening tests; practices regarding discussing screening with patients; and views on opportunities to enhance their role. Transcripts were coded using Nvivo and thematically analysed.

resultsThe study revealed GPs' perceptions of screening did not always align with broader public health definitions of 'population screening'. While many GPs reportedly understood the purpose of population screening, notions of the role of asymptomatic screening for bowel cancer prevention were more limited. Descriptions of screening centred on two major uses: the use of a screening 'process' to identify individual patients at higher risk; and the use of screening 'tools', including the FOBT, to aid diagnosis. While the FOBT was perceived as useful for identifying patients requiring follow up, GPs expressed concerns about its reliability. Colonoscopy by comparison, was considered by many as the gold standard for both screening and diagnosis. This perception reflects a conceptualisation of the screening process and associated tools as an individualised method for risk assessment and diagnosis, rather than a public health strategy for prevention of bowel cancer.

conclusionThe results show that GPs' perceptions of screening do not always align with broader public health definitions of 'population screening'. Furthermore, the way GPs understood screening was shown to impact their clinical practice, influencing their preferences for, and use of 'screening' tools such as FOBT. The findings suggest emphasising the preventative opportunity of FOBT screening would be beneficial, as would formally engaging GPs in the promotion of bowel screening.

Indexed as

Attitude of Health PersonnelAdultColonoscopyColorectal NeoplasmsCross-Sectional StudiesEarly Detection of CancerFemaleGeneral PractitionersHumansInterviews as TopicMaleMass ScreeningMiddle AgedNew South WalesOccult BloodPatient Acceptance of Health CareBowel cancerBowel screeningCancer preventionEarly detectionFOBTGeneral practitionersQualitative

Identifiers

PMID28298185
PMCPMC5353863
OpenAlexW2596267788

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.