Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29025829›Full record

ArticleBMJ open2017

Is an opportunistic primary care-based intervention for non-responders to bowel screening feasible and acceptable? A mixed-methods feasibility study in Scotland.

Natalia Calanzani, Debbie Cavers, Gabriele Vojt, Sheina Orbell, Robert J C Steele, Linda Brownlee, Steve Smith, Julietta Patnick, David Weller, Christine Campbell

Abstract readMulticenter Study
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in BMJ open, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

4 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Effectiveness of reminder strategies on cancer screening adherence: a randomised controlled trial.The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners · 2018
    Trial
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. 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

10 authors.

Natalia CalanzaniThe Usher Institute of Population Health Sciences and Informatics, Centre for Population Health Sciences, Medical School, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, UK.
Debbie CaversThe Usher Institute of Population Health Sciences and Informatics, Centre for Population Health Sciences, Medical School, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, UK.
Gabriele VojtDepartment of Psychology, Glasgow Caledonian University, Glasgow, UK.
Sheina OrbellDepartment of Psychology, University of Essex, Colchester, Essex, UK.
Robert J C SteeleDepartment of Surgery and Molecular Oncology, Ninewells Hospital, University of Dundee, Dundee, UK.
Linda BrownleeScottish Bowel Screening Centre, Dundee, UK.
Steve SmithUniversity Hospitals of Coventry and Warwickshire NHS Trust, Midlands and NW Bowel Cancer Screening Hub, Rugby, UK.
Julietta PatnickCancer Epidemiology Unit, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.
David WellerThe Usher Institute of Population Health Sciences and Informatics, Centre for Population Health Sciences, Medical School, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, UK.
Christine CampbellThe Usher Institute of Population Health Sciences and Informatics, Centre for Population Health Sciences, Medical School, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, UK.

Funding

Cancer Research UK 13965
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesWe aimed to test whether a brief, opportunistic intervention in general practice was a feasible and acceptable way to engage with bowel screening non-responders.

designThis was a feasibility study testing an intervention which comprised a brief conversation during routine consultation, provision of a patient leaflet and instructions to request a replacement faecal occult blood test kit. A mixed-methods approach to evaluation was adopted. Data were collected from proformas completed after each intervention, from the Bowel Screening Centre database and from questionnaires. Semi-structured interviews were carried out. We used descriptive statistics, content and framework analysis to determine intervention feasibility and acceptability.

participantsBowel screening non-responders (as defined by the Scottish Bowel Screening Centre) and primary care professionals working in five general practices in Lothian, Scotland. PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES: Several predefined feasibility parameters were assessed, including numbers of patients engaging in conversation, requesting a replacement kit and returning it, and willingness of primary care professionals to deliver the intervention.

resultsThe intervention was offered to 258 patients in five general practices: 220 (87.0%) engaged with the intervention, 60 (23.3%) requested a new kit, 22 (8.5%) kits were completed and returned. Interviews and questionnaires suggest that the intervention was feasible, acceptable and consistent with an existing health prevention agenda. Reported challenges referred to work-related pressures, time constraints and practice priorities.

conclusionsThis intervention was acceptable and resulted in a modest increase in non-responders participating in bowel screening, although outlined challenges may affect sustained implementation. The strategy is also aligned with the increasing role of primary care in promoting bowel screening.

Indexed as

Health Knowledge, Attitudes, PracticeOccult BloodAgedColorectal NeoplasmsFeasibility StudiesFemaleHumansMaleMass ScreeningMiddle AgedPatient CompliancePrimary Health CareQualitative ResearchReagent Kits, DiagnosticScotlandSurveys and QuestionnairesReagent Kits, Diagnosticbowel screeningfeasibility studiesgeneral practiceneoplasms

Identifiers

PMID29025829
PMCPMC5652541

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.