Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34666704›Full record

ArticleBMC cancer2021

The implementation of colorectal cancer screening interventions in low-and middle-income countries: a scoping review.

Désirée Schliemann, Kogila Ramanathan, Nicholas Matovu, Ciaran O'Neill, Frank Kee, Tin Tin Su, Michael Donnelly

Abstract readScoping Review
In one paragraph

Article in BMC cancer, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 45 papers, 5 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
45citing papers in PubMed, 5 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

45 citing papers in PubMed, 5 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Article
  7. Emerging trends in the global burden of colorectal cancer.Nature reviews. Clinical oncology · 2026
    Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Review
  19. Article
  20. 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.

Désirée SchliemannCentre for Public Health and UKCRC Centre of Excellence for Public Health, Queen's University Belfast, Belfast, UK. d.schliemann@qub.ac.uk.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-8746-3002
Kogila RamanathanGlobal Public Health, Jeffrey Cheah School of Medicine and Health Sciences, Monash University Malaysia, Subang Jaya, Selangor, Malaysia.
Nicholas MatovuCentre for Public Health and UKCRC Centre of Excellence for Public Health, Queen's University Belfast, Belfast, UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4756-288X
Ciaran O'NeillCentre for Public Health and UKCRC Centre of Excellence for Public Health, Queen's University Belfast, Belfast, UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7668-3934
Frank KeeCentre for Public Health and UKCRC Centre of Excellence for Public Health, Queen's University Belfast, Belfast, UK.
Tin Tin SuGlobal Public Health, Jeffrey Cheah School of Medicine and Health Sciences, Monash University Malaysia, Subang Jaya, Selangor, Malaysia.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0387-6406
Michael DonnellyCentre for Public Health and UKCRC Centre of Excellence for Public Health, Queen's University Belfast, Belfast, UK.

Funding

Medical Research Council MR/K023241/1Medical Research Council MR/S014349/1
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundLow- and middle-income countries (LMICs) experienced increasing rates of colorectal cancer (CRC) incidence in the last decade and lower 5-year survival rates compared to high-income countries (HICs) where the implementation of screening and treatment services have advanced. This review scoped and mapped the literature regarding the content, implementation and uptake of CRC screening interventions as well as opportunities and challenges for the implementation of CRC screening interventions in LMICs.

methodsWe systematically followed a five-step scoping review framework to identify and review relevant literature about CRC screening in LMICs, written in the English language before February 2020. We searched Medline, Embase, Web of Science and Google Scholar for studies targeting the general, asymptomatic, at-risk adult population. The TIDieR tool and an implementation checklist were used to extract data from empirical studies; and we extracted data-informed insights from policy reviews and commentaries.

resultsCRC screening interventions (n = 24 studies) were implemented in nine middle-income countries. Population-based screening programmes (n = 11) as well as small-scale screening interventions (n = 13) utilised various recruitment strategies. Interventions that recruited participants face-to-face (alone or in combination with other recruitment strategies) (10/15), opportunistic clinic-based screening interventions (5/6) and educational interventions combined with screening (3/4), seemed to be the strategies that consistently achieved an uptake of > 65% in LMICs. FOBT/FIT and colonoscopy uptake ranged between 14 and 100%. The most commonly reported implementation indicator was 'uptake/reach'. There was an absence of detail regarding implementation indicators and there is a need to improve reporting practice in order to disseminate learning about how to implement programmes.

conclusionOpportunities and challenges for the implementation of CRC screening programmes were related to the reporting of CRC cases and screening, cost-effective screening methods, knowledge about CRC and screening, staff resources and training, infrastructure of the health care system, financial resources, public health campaigns, policy commitment from governments, patient navigation, planning of screening programmes and quality assurance.

Indexed as

Asymptomatic DiseasesDeveloping CountriesAdultColorectal NeoplasmsFemaleHealth ResourcesHumansMaleMass ScreeningMiddle AgedPatient Education as TopicProgram DevelopmentBowel cancerColorectal cancerImplementationLMICReviewScreening

Identifiers

PMID34666704
PMCPMC8524916

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.