Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29960599›Full record

ArticleBMC family practice2018

Development of an evidence-based brief 'talking' intervention for non-responders to bowel screening for use in primary care: stakeholder interviews.

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

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC family practice, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact, top 91% 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

5 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 7 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Optimizing the implementation of lung cancer screening in Scotland: Focus group participant perspectives in the LUNGSCOT study.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2022
    Article
  4. Article
  5. 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 at 7 institutions in 1 country.

Debbie CaversThe Usher Institute of Population Health Sciences and Informatics, Medical School, University of Edinburgh, Doorway 1, Teviot Place, Edinburgh, EH8 9AG, UK. debbie.cavers@ed.ac.uk.ORCID 0000-0002-5419-6331
Natalia CalanzaniThe Usher Institute of Population Health Sciences and Informatics, Medical School, University of Edinburgh, Doorway 1, Teviot Place, Edinburgh, EH8 9AG, UK.
Sheina OrbellDepartment of Psychology, University of Essex, Wivenhoe Park, Colchester, CO4 3SQ, UK.
Gabriele VojtDepartment of Psychology, Social Work and Health Sciences, Glasgow Caledonian University, 70 Cowcaddens Road, Glasgow, UK.
Robert J C SteeleDivision of Cancer Research, Ninewells Hospital and Medical School, Mailbox 4, Level 6, Dundee, DD1 9SY, UK.
Linda BrownleeScottish Bowel Screening Centre, Kings Cross Hospital, Clepington Road, Dundee, DD3 8EA, UK.
Steve SmithNHS Bowel Cancer Screening Midlands and North West Programme Hub, St. Cross Hospital, Barby Road, Rugby, CV22 5PX, UK.
Julietta PatnickCancer Epidemiology Unit, Oxford University, Richard Doll Building, Roosevelt Drive, Oxford, OX3 7LF, UK.
David WellerThe Usher Institute of Population Health Sciences and Informatics, Medical School, University of Edinburgh, Doorway 1, Teviot Place, Edinburgh, EH8 9AG, UK.
Christine CampbellThe Usher Institute of Population Health Sciences and Informatics, Medical School, University of Edinburgh, Doorway 1, Teviot Place, Edinburgh, EH8 9AG, UK.
University of Edinburgh · GBGlasgow Caledonian University · GBHospital of St. Cross · GBKing's Cross Hospital · GBNinewells Hospital · GBUniversity of Essex · GBUniversity of Oxford · GB

Funding

Cancer Research UK C12357/A13965
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundBowel cancer is the third most common cause of cancer death worldwide. Bowel screening has been shown to reduce mortality and primary care interventions have been successful in increasing uptake of screening. Using evidence-based theory to inform the development of such interventions has been shown to increase their effectiveness. This study aimed to develop and refine a brief evidence-based intervention for eligible individuals whom have not responded to their last bowel screening invitation (non-responders), for opportunistic use by primary care providers during routine consultations.

methodsThe development of a brief intervention involving a conversation between primary care providers and non-responders was informed by a multi-faceted model comprising: research team workshop and meetings to draw on expertise; evidence from the literature regarding barriers to bowel screening and effective strategies to promote informed participation; relevant psychological theory, and intervention development and behaviour change guidance. Qualitative telephone interviews with 1) bowel screening stakeholders and 2) patient non-responders explored views regarding the acceptability of the intervention to help refine its content and process.

resultsThe intervention provides a theory and evidence-based tool designed to be incorporated within current primary care practice. Bowel screening stakeholders were supportive of the intervention and recognised the importance of the role of primary care. Interviews highlighted the importance of brevity and simplicity to incorporate the intervention into routine clinical care. Non-responders similarly found the intervention acceptable, valuing a holistic approach to their care. Moreover, they expected their primary care provider to encourage participation.

conclusionsA theory-based brief conversation for use in a primary care consultation was acceptable to bowel screening stakeholders and potential recipients, reflecting a health promoting primary care ethos. Findings indicate that it is appropriate to test the intervention in primary care in a feasibility study.

Indexed as

Physician-Patient RelationsPhysicians, Primary CareAgedColorectal NeoplasmsEarly Detection of CancerEvidence-Based MedicineFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedOccult BloodPatient Acceptance of Health CarePatient ParticipationStakeholder ParticipationUnited KingdomBehaviour changeBowel screeningCancerInterventionPrimary care

Identifiers

PMID29960599
PMCPMC6026505
OpenAlexW2810821519

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.