ArticleBJGP open2022
Faecal immunochemical test for suspected colorectal cancer symptoms: patient survey of usability and acceptability.
Article in BJGP open, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 18 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
18 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 26 citations in OpenAlex.
- Quantitative faecal immunochemical tests to guide colorectal cancer pathway referral in primary care. A systematic review, meta-analysis and cost-effectiveness analysis.Health technology assessment (Winchester, England) · 2025Pooled it
- Article
- Evaluation of user experiences, perceptions and attitudes towards faecal immunochemical testing (FIT) for risk-stratified colonoscopy in people with Lynch syndrome.BMJ open gastroenterology · 2025Article
- Article
- Barriers and facilitators to faecal immunochemical testing in symptomatic populations: A rapid systematic scoping review and gap analysis.Journal of evaluation in clinical practice · 2025Article
- Public perceptions of biospecimen sampling and uncertainty in the context of personalised nutrition.PloS one · 2025Article
- Review
- Patient preferences for investigating cancer-related symptoms in Australian general practice: a discrete-choice experiment.The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners · 2024Article
- Patient and healthcare professionals' perceptions of a combined blood and faecal immunochemical test for excluding colorectal cancer diagnosis in primary care.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2023Article
- Sociodemographic variations in the uptake of faecal immunochemical tests in primary care: a retrospective study.The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners · 2023Article
- Article
- Patient-reported outcome measures show FIT as an acceptable investigation to rule out colorectal cancer in the two-week wait cohort.Annals of the Royal College of Surgeons of England · 2023Article
- Patient experience and satisfaction with symptomatic faecal immunochemical testing: an explanatory sequential mixed-methods evaluation.The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners · 2023Article
- Additive pre-diagnostic and diagnostic value of routine blood-based biomarkers in the detection of colorectal cancer in the UK Biobank cohort.Scientific reports · 2023Article
- Article
- Article
- Article
- Rejection of Fecal Immunochemical Tests Within the Lower Gastrointestinal Diagnostic Pathway: A Cohort Study.Journal of primary care & community healthArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundRecent evidence suggests that the faecal immunochemical test (FIT) can rule out colorectal cancer (CRC) in symptomatic patients. To date, there is no research on usability and perception of FIT for these patients.
aimTo measure variation in attitudes and perception of FIT in patients with suspected CRC symptoms. DESIGN &
settingA cross-sectional survey of a subset of participants of the NICE FIT study.
methodA questionnaire was co-developed with patients covering four themes on a Likert scale: FIT feasibility, faecal aversion, patient knowledge, and future intentions. Questionnaire and FIT kits were sent to patients with suspected CRC symptoms participating in the NICE FIT study. Logistic regression explored differences in patients' test perception by ethnic group, language, age, location, deprivation, FIT use, and previous experience.
resultsA total of 1151 questionnaires were analysed; 90.2% (95% confidence interval [CI] = 88.3% to 91.8%) of patients found faecal collection straightforward, 76.3% (95% CI = 73.7% to 78.6%) disagreed FIT was unhygienic, and 78.1% (95% CI = 75.6% to 80.4%) preferred FIT to colonoscopy. Preference for FIT over colonoscopy was weaker in patients aged 40-64 years than those >65 years (odds ratio [OR] 0.60; 95% CI = 0.43 to 0.84). Intention to use FIT again was stronger in patients who successfully used FIT than those unsuccessful (OR 11.08; 95% CI = 2.74 to 44.75), and white compared with non-white patients assessed (OR 3.20; 95% CI = 1.32 to 7.75).
conclusionWhile most patients found FIT practical and hygienic, perception differences were found. Strategies to engage patients with more negative FIT perception should underpin symptomatic FIT pathways.
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.