ArticleJournal of the American Board of Family Medicine : JABFM
"Finding the Right FIT": Rural Patient Preferences for Fecal Immunochemical Test (FIT) Characteristics.
Article in Journal of the American Board of Family Medicine : JABFM. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 22 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
22 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 36 citations in OpenAlex.
- Experience and satisfaction of participants in colorectal cancer screening programs: a qualitative evidence synthesis.BMC public health · 2024Pooled it
- Pooled it
- Pooled it
- Repeat Annual Colorectal Cancer Screening in Rural Community Clinics: A Randomized Clinical Trial to Evaluate Outreach Strategies to Sustain Screening.The Journal of rural health : official journal of the American Rural Health Association and the National Rural Health Care Association · 2020Trial
- Trial
- Improving Patient Education Materials for HPV Self-Collection: Insights from Women at High Risk of Developing Cervical Cancer.Cancer management and research · 2025Article
- Improving Fecal Immunochemical Test Collection for Colorectal Cancer Screening During the COVID-19 Pandemic.Federal practitioner : for the health care professionals of the VA, DoD, and PHS · 2024Article
- Engaging with Rural Communities for Colorectal Cancer Screening Outreach Using Modified Boot Camp Translation.Progress in community health partnerships : research, education, and action · 2024Article
- Improving colorectal cancer screening in rural primary care: Preliminary effectiveness and implementation of a collaborative mailed fecal immunochemical test pilot.The Journal of rural health : official journal of the American Rural Health Association and the National Rural Health Care Association · 2023Article
- Mailed fecal testing and patient navigation versus usual care to improve rates of colorectal cancer screening and follow-up colonoscopy in rural Medicaid enrollees: a cluster-randomized controlled trial.Implementation science communications · 2022Article
- Source matters: a survey of cost variation for fecal immunochemical tests in primary care.BMC health services research · 2022Article
- A qualitative study of patient preferences for prompts and reminders for a direct-mail fecal testing program.Translational behavioral medicine · 2021Article
- Low Literacy Level Instructions and Reminder Calls Improve Patient Handling of Fecal Immunochemical Test Samples.Clinical gastroenterology and hepatology : the official clinical practice journal of the American Gastroenterological Association · 2019Article
- Is Colorectal Cancer Screening Appropriate in Nigeria?Journal of global oncology · 2019Review
- Formative Research on Knowledge and Preferences for Stool-based Tests compared to Colonoscopy: What Patients and Providers Think.Journal of community health · 2018Article
- Aligning systems science and community-based participatory research: A case example of the Community Health Advocacy and Research Alliance (CHARA).Journal of clinical and translational science · 2018Article
- Faecal immunochemical testing implementation to increase colorectal cancer screening in primary care.BMJ open quality · 2018Article
- Eliciting vulnerable patients' preferences regarding colorectal cancer screening: a systematic review.Patient preference and adherence · 2018Review
- The Evolving Collaborative Relationship between Practice-Based Research Networks (PBRNs) and Clinical and Translational Science Awardees (CTSAs).Journal of clinical and translational science · 2017Article
- "Taking the Bull by the Horns": Four Principles to Align Public Health, Primary Care, and Community Efforts to Improve Rural Cancer Control.The Journal of rural health : official journal of the American Rural Health Association and the National Rural Health Care Association · 2017Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
purposeColorectal cancer (CRC) is the third leading cause of cancer death in the United States, yet 1 in 3 Americans have never been screened for CRC. Annual screening using fecal immunochemical tests (FITs) is often a preferred modality in populations experiencing CRC screening disparities. Although multiple studies evaluate the clinical effectiveness of FITs, few studies assess patient preferences toward kit characteristics. We conducted this community-led study to assess patient preferences for FIT characteristics and to use study findings in concert with clinical effectiveness data to inform regional FIT selection.
methodsWe collaborated with local health system leaders to identify FITs and recruit age eligible (50 to 75 years), English or Spanish speaking community members. Participants completed up to 6 FITs and associated questionnaires and were invited to participate in a follow-up focus group. We used a sequential explanatory mixed-methods design to assess participant preferences and rank FIT kits. First, we used quantitative data from user testing to measure acceptability, ease of completion, and specimen adequacy through a descriptive analysis of 1) fixed response questionnaire items on participant attitudes toward and experiences with FIT kits, and 2) a clinical assessment of adherence to directions regarding collection, packaging, and return of specimens. Second, we analyzed qualitative data from focus groups to refine FIT rankings and gain deeper insight into the pros and cons associated with each tested kit.
findingsSeventy-six FITs were completed by 18 participants (Range, 3 to 6 kits per participant). Over half (56%, n = 10) of the participants were Hispanic and 50% were female (n = 9). Thirteen participants attended 1 of 3 focus groups. Participants preferred FITs that were single sample, used a probe and vial for sample collection, and had simple, large-font instructions with colorful pictures. Participants reported challenges using paper to catch samples, had difficulty labeling tests, and emphasized the importance of having care team members provide verbal instructions on test completion and follow-up support for patients with abnormal results. FIT rankings from most to least preferred were OC-Light, Hemosure iFOB Test, InSure FIT, QuickVue, OneStep+, and Hemoccult ICT.
conclusionsFIT characteristics influenced patient's perceptions of test acceptability and feasibility. Health system leaders, payers, and clinicians should select FITs that are both clinically effective and incorporate patient preferred test characteristics. Consideration of patient preferences may facilitate FIT return, especially in populations at higher risk for experiencing CRC screening disparities.
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.