Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34607734›Full record

ArticlePatient education and counseling2022

Barriers and facilitators to colonoscopy following fecal immunochemical test screening for colorectal cancer: A key informant interview study.

Robert S Kerrison, Elizabeth Travis, Christina Dobson, Katriina L Whitaker, Colin J Rees, Stephen W Duffy, Christian von Wagner

Abstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Patient education and counseling, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 20 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
20citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
–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

20 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. 'I Do It All Alone': The Burdens and Benefits of Being Diagnosed With, and Treated for, Colorectal Cancer During the Covid-19 Pandemic.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2024
    Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Review
  20. Is routine terminal ileum intubation justified during screening colonoscopy? Evidence from a regional screening program.Romanian journal of morphology and embryology = Revue roumaine de morphologie et embryologie
    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.

Robert S KerrisonDepartment of Behavioural Science and Health, University College London, London, UK; School of Health Sciences, University of Surrey, Surrey, UK. Electronic address: r.kerrison@surrey.ac.uk.
Elizabeth TravisSchool of Psychology, University of Leeds, Leeds, UK.
Christina DobsonCentre for Cancer, Newcastle University, Newcastle Upon Tyne, UK.
Katriina L WhitakerSchool of Health Sciences, University of Surrey, Surrey, UK.
Colin J ReesPopulation Health Sciences Institute, Newcastle University Centre for Cancer, Newcastle University, Newcastle Upon Tyne, UK; Department of Gastroenterology, South Tyneside NHS Foundation Trust, South Shields, UK.
Stephen W DuffyWolfson Institute, Queen Mary University London, London, UK.
Christian von WagnerDepartment of Behavioural Science and Health, University College London, London, UK.

Funding

Cancer Research UK 28209Cancer Research UK C68512/A28209
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesPeople who are referred for colonoscopy, following an abnormal colorectal cancer (CRC) screening result, are at increased risk of CRC. Despite this, many individuals decline the procedure. The aim of this study was to investigate why.

methodsAs little is currently known about non-attendance at follow-up colonoscopy, and follow-up of abnormal screening results is a nurse-led process, we decided to conduct key informant interviews with Specialist Screening Practitioners ([SSPs] nurses working in the English Bowel Cancer Screening Program). Interviews were conducted online. Transcripts were assessed using inductive and deductive coding techniques.

results21 SSPs participated in an interview. Five main types of barriers and facilitators to colonoscopy were described, namely: Sociocultural, Practical, Psychological, Health-related and COVID-related. Key psychological and sociocultural factors included: 'Fear of pain and discomfort associated with the procedure' and 'Lack of support from family and friends'. Key practical, health-related and COVID-related factors included: 'Family and work commitments', 'Existing health conditions as competing priorities' and 'Fear of getting COVID-19 at the hospital'.

conclusionsA range of barriers and facilitators to follow-up colonoscopy exist. Future studies conducted with patients are needed to further explore barriers to colonoscopy. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: Strategies to reduce non-attendance should adopt a multifaceted approach.

Indexed as

Colorectal NeoplasmsCOVID-19ColonoscopyEarly Detection of CancerHumansMass ScreeningOccult BloodQualitative ResearchColonoscopyEarly diagnosisFecal immunochemical testInterviewsQualitative researchScreening

Identifiers

PMID34607734
PMCPMC9214549

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.