Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30290783›Full record

ArticleBMC public health2018

Barriers to bowel scope (flexible sigmoidoscopy) screening: a comparison of non-responders, active decliners and non-attenders.

Christian von Wagner, Bernardette Bonello, Sandro Stoffel, Hanna Skrobanski, Madeleine Freeman, Robert S Kerrison, Lesley M McGregor

Abstract read

PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher

In one paragraph

Article in BMC public health, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it

0cells of the map it votes in

6citing 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

6 citing papers in PubMed.

Use of a GP-endorsed non-participant reminder letter to promote uptake of bowel scope screening: A randomised controlled trial in a hard-to-reach population.Preventive medicine · 2020
Trial
Using specialist screening practitioners (SSPs) to increase uptake of bowel scope (flexible sigmoidoscopy) screening: results of a feasibility single-stage phase II randomised trial.BMJ open · 2019
Trial
Socioeconomic differences in discrepancies between expected and experienced discomfort from colonoscopy and colon capsule endoscopy.Heliyon · 2024
Article
Why do people choose not to take part in screening? Qualitative interview study of atrial fibrillation screening nonparticipation.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2023
Article
Barriers to colonoscopy in UK colorectal cancer screening programmes: Qualitative interviews with ethnic minority groups.Psycho-oncology · 2023
Article
Preferences for different diagnostic modalities to follow up abnormal colorectal cancer screening results: a hypothetical vignette study.BMJ open · 2020
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.

Christian von WagnerResearch Department of Behavioural Science and Health, University College London, Gower Street, London, WC1E 6BT, UK. c.wagner@ucl.ac.uk.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-7971-0691

Bernardette BonelloResearch Department of Behavioural Science and Health, University College London, Gower Street, London, WC1E 6BT, UK.

Sandro StoffelResearch Department of Behavioural Science and Health, University College London, Gower Street, London, WC1E 6BT, UK.

Hanna SkrobanskiResearch Department of Behavioural Science and Health, University College London, Gower Street, London, WC1E 6BT, UK.

Madeleine FreemanResearch Department of Behavioural Science and Health, University College London, Gower Street, London, WC1E 6BT, UK.

Robert S KerrisonResearch Department of Behavioural Science and Health, University College London, Gower Street, London, WC1E 6BT, UK.

Lesley M McGregorResearch Department of Behavioural Science and Health, University College London, Gower Street, London, WC1E 6BT, UK.

Funding

Cancer Research UK 17326Cancer Research UK C27064/A17326

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundParticipation in bowel scope screening (BSS) is low (43%), limiting its potential to reduce colorectal cancer (CRC) incidence and mortality. This study aimed to quantify the prevalence of barriers to BSS and examine the extent to which these barriers differed according to non-participant profiles: non-responders to the BSS invitation, active decliners of the invitation, and non-attenders of confirmed appointments.

methodsIndividuals invited for BSS between March 2013 and December 2015, across 28 General Practices in England, were sent a questionnaire. Questions measured initial interest in BSS, engagement with the information booklet, BSS participation, and, where applicable, reasons for BSS non-attendance. Chi-square tests of independence were performed to examine the relationship between barriers, non-participant groups and socio-demographic variables.

results1478 (45.8%) questionnaires were returned for analysis: 1230 (83.2%) attended screening, 114 (7.7%) were non-responders to the BSS invitation, 100 (6.8%) were active decliners, and 34 (2.3%) were non-attenders. Non-responders were less likely to have read the whole information booklet than active decliners (x

conclusionsInterventions to improve BSS uptake should be more nuanced and use targeted strategies to address the specific needs of each group.

Indexed as

Early Detection of CancerHealth Services AccessibilityAppointments and SchedulesColorectal NeoplasmsEnglandFemaleGeneral PracticeHealth Care SurveysHumansMaleMiddle AgedPamphletsSigmoidoscopyBowel scopeColorectal cancerFlexible sigmoidoscopyNon-attendanceScreening

Identifiers

PMID30290783

DOI10.1186/s12889-018-6071-8

PMCPMC6173878

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.