ArticleBJGP open2019
GPs' perspectives on colorectal cancer screening and their potential influence on FIT-positive patients: an exploratory qualitative study from a Dutch context.
Article in BJGP open, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Perceptions and beliefs of general practitioners on their role in the cancer screening programmes in the Netherlands: a mixed-methods study.BMC primary care · 2024Article
- Article
- Article
- What can We Learn From High-Performing Screening Programs to Increase Bowel Cancer Screening Participation in Australia?Cancer control : journal of the Moffitt Cancer CenterArticle
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundIn the Dutch colorectal cancer (CRC) screening programme, individuals receive a faecal immunochemical test (FIT) to do at home. After a positive FIT result, a follow-up colonoscopy is recommended to identify CRC or advanced adenomas (AA). GPs may influence their patients' decisions on adherence to follow-up by colonoscopy.
aimTo explore GPs' perspectives on the CRC screening programme and their potential influence on FIT-positive patients to follow up with the recommended colonoscopy. DESIGN &
settingSemi-structured interviews among GPs in Amsterdam, the Netherlands.
methodGPs were approached using purposive sampling. Analysis was performed on 11 interviews using open coding and constant comparison.
resultsAll interviewed GPs would recommend FIT-positive patients without obvious contraindications to adhere to a follow-up colonoscopy. If patients were likely to be distressed by a positive FIT result, most GPs described using reassurance strategies emphasising a low cancer probability. Most GPs stressed the probability of false-positive FIT results. Some described taking a positive screening result in CRC screening less seriously than one in breast cancer screening. Most GPs underestimated CRC and AA probabilities after a positive FIT result. When told the actual probabilities, some stated that this knowledge might change the way they would inform patients.
conclusionThese results imply that some of the interviewed GPs have too low a perception of the risk associated with a positive FIT result, which might influence their patients' decision-making. Simply informing GPs about the actual rates of CRC and AA found in the screening programme might improve this risk perception.
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.