ArticleBMJ open2020
Patients' views on involving general practice in bowel cancer screening: a South Australian focus group study.
Article in BMJ open, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 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
7 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 11 citations in OpenAlex.
- Information needs for cancer screening and associated factors of information-seeking behaviour: a qualitative systematic review.BMC public health · 2024Pooled it
- Trial
- Healthcare providers' perspectives on implementing a primary care-based initiative to increase equitable bowel cancer screening participation in Australia.Health promotion international · 2026Article
- Co-designing a general practice-led intervention and implementation strategy to increase bowel cancer screening through general practice: a qualitative study.BMC primary care · 2025Article
- From small steps to big impact: what we learnt from the National Bowel Screening Programme.Journal of the Royal Society of New Zealand · 2025Review
- How do women comply with cancer screenings? A study in four regions of France.BMC women's health · 2023Article
- Development and psychometric evaluation of the Aversion to Bowel Cancer Screening Scale.European journal of cancer care · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesTo explore patients' experiences of bowel cancer screening and its promotion, and perspectives on possible input from general practice for improving screening rates.
designQualitative focus group study underpinned by a phenomenological approach.
settingThree general practice clinics in metropolitan South Australia.
participantsThirty active general practice patients, aged 50-74 years (60% female) who were eligible for the National Bowel Cancer Screening Program.
findingsFactors affecting screening were described, with particular concerns regarding the nature of the test, screening process and culture. There were mixed views on the role for general practice in bowel cancer screening; some participants appreciated the current process and viewed screening as out of scope of primary care services, while others were in support of general practice involvement. Roles for general practice were proposed that comprised actions across the continuum from providing information through to reminders and the provision and collection of screening kits. With a view that multifaceted strategies are required to encourage participation, community-based solutions were suggested that centred on improving screening culture and education.
conclusionsThere was a view among participants that general practice could play a useful role in supporting the uptake of the National Bowel Cancer Screening Program, however participants saw a need for multiple strategies at different levels and under different jurisdictions.
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.