ArticleBMC family practice2020
A risk prediction tool for colorectal cancer screening: a qualitative study of patient and provider facilitators and barriers.
Article in BMC family practice, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers, 1 of them a synthesis 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
11 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 19 citations in OpenAlex.
- Acceptability and perceptions of personalised risk-based cancer screening among health-care professionals and the general public: a systematic review and meta-analysis.The Lancet. Public health · 2025Pooled it
- Exploring a novel method for optimising the implementation of a colorectal cancer risk prediction tool into primary care: a qualitative study.Implementation science : IS · 2022Trial
- A qualitative study of a new metric for estimating early-onset colorectal cancer risk in male veterans: "Colon Age".BMC primary care · 2025Article
- Navigating the evolving landscape of colorectal cancer screening with a practical framework: a comprehensive analysis of existing and emerging technologies for informed decision-making.Oncology reviews · 2025Review
- Polygenic scores in cancer.Nature reviews. Cancer · 2023Review
- Predicting attitudes towards screening for neurodegenerative diseases using OCT and artificial intelligence: Findings from a literature review.Journal of public health research · 2022Article
- A scoping review of risk-stratified bowel screening: current evidence, future directions.Cancer causes & control : CCC · 2022Article
- Do difficulties in emotional processing predict procedure pain and shape the patient's colonoscopy experience?BMJ open · 2022Observational
- Identifying the main barriers for participation in a population-based colorectal cancer screening programme in East Azerbaijan, Iran.Ecancermedicalscience · 2022Article
- Realizing the Promise of Personalized Colorectal Cancer Screening in Practice.Journal of the National Cancer Institute · 2021Article
- How to optimize the design and implementation of risk prediction tools: focus group with patients with IgA nephropathy.BMC medical informatics and decision making · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundDespite proven effectiveness of colorectal cancer (CRC) screening, at least 35% of screen-eligible adults are not current with screening. Decision aids and risk prediction tools may help increase uptake, adherence, and efficiency of CRC screening by presenting lower-risk patients with options less invasive than colonoscopy. The purpose of this qualitative study was to determine patient and provider perceptions of facilitators and barriers to use of a risk prediction tool for advanced colorectal neoplasia (CRC and advanced, precancerous polyps), to maximize its chances of successful clinical implementation.
methodsWe conducted qualitative, semi-structured interviews with patients aged 50-75 years who were not current with CRC screening, and primary care providers (PCPs) at an academic and a U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs Medical Center in the Midwest from October 2016 through March 2017. Participants were asked about their current experiences discussing CRC screening, then were shown the risk tool and asked about its acceptability, barriers, facilitators, and whether they would use it to guide their choice of a screening test. The constant comparative method guided analysis.
resultsThirty patients and PCPs participated. Among facilitators were the tool's potential to increase screening uptake, reduce patient risk, improve resource allocation, and facilitate discussion about CRC screening. PCP-identified barriers included concerns about the tool's accuracy, consistency with guidelines, and time constraints.
conclusionsPatients and PCPs found the risk prediction tool useful, with potential to increase uptake, safety, and efficiency of CRC screening, indicating potential acceptability and feasibility of implementation into clinical practice.
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.