ArticleBMJ open2022
What are common barriers and helpful solutions to colorectal cancer screening? A cross-sectional survey to develop intervention content for a planning support tool.
Article in BMJ open, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.
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
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Assessing the Feasibility and Acceptability of a Colorectal Cancer Risk Prediction Tool in Primary Care to Increase Screening Uptake in Singapore: A Multi-Methods Pilot Study.Journal of primary care & community healthTrial
- Financial incentives for women's cervical, breast and colorectal cancer screening adherence: systematic review and meta-analysis.Preventive medicine reports · 2026Review
- Assessing the translation of diagnostic colorectal cancer biomarkers from bench to bedside.Frontiers in medicine · 2025Article
- Utilising Pancreatic Exocrine Insufficiency in the Detection of Resectable Pancreatic Ductal Adenocarcinoma.Cancers · 2023Article
- Assessment of Psychosocial Correlates and Associated Factors of Colorectal Cancer Screening among Southwestern Saudi Population: A Cross-Sectional Study.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveColorectal screening using faecal immunochemical tests (FITs) can save lives if the people invited participate. In Scotland, most people intend to complete a FIT but this is not reflected in uptake rates. Planning interventions can bridge this intention-behaviour gap. To develop a tool supporting people willing to do colorectal screening with planning to complete a FIT, this study aimed to identify frequently experienced barriers and solutions to these barriers.
designThis is a cross-sectional study.
settingParticipants were recruited through the Scottish Bowel Screening Programme to complete a mailed questionnaire.
participantsThe study included 2387 participants who had completed a FIT (mean age 65 years, 40% female) and 359 participants who had not completed a FIT but were inclined to do so (mean age 63 years, 39% female). OUTCOME MEASURES: The questionnaire assessed frequency of endorsement of colorectal screening barriers and solutions.
resultsParticipants who had not completed a FIT endorsed significantly more barriers than those who had completed a FIT, when demographic, health and behavioural covariates were held constant (F(1,2053)=13.40, p<0.001, partial η
conclusionThis survey identified six barriers and seven solutions as key content to include in the development of a planning tool for colorectal screening using the FIT. Participatory research is required to codesign an engaging and accessible planning tool.
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.