ArticleTranslational behavioral medicine2023
Patient perspectives on a proposed pharmacy-based colorectal cancer screening program.
Article in Translational behavioral medicine, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 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
11 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Early cancer diagnosis and community pharmacies: a systematic review.The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners · 2026Pooled it
- Expanding access to colorectal cancer screening through community pharmacies: Study protocol for the PharmFIT™ randomized controlled trial.Contemporary clinical trials · 2026Article
- Colorectal Cancer Screening in Malaysia: Understanding the iFOBT-to-Colonoscopy Gap.Journal of gastrointestinal cancer · 2026Review
- A Critical Evaluation of Contextual Factors Affecting the Implementation of Pharmacist-Led Colorectal Cancer Screening: A Scoping Narrative Hybrid Review.Preventing chronic disease · 2026Article
- Patient preferences and perceived barriers to follow-up care in a pharmacy-based colorectal cancer screening program: a national survey.Cancer causes & control : CCC · 2025Article
- It Is a Good Idea, but Are They Willing? Assessing Pharmacist Willingness to Deliver Colorectal Cancer Screening.Cancer epidemiology, biomarkers & prevention : a publication of the American Association for Cancer Research, cosponsored by the American Society of Preventive Oncology · 2025Article
- Behavioural theories, models and frameworks to underpin clinical pharmacy and pharmacy practice research: guidance from the European Society of Clinical Pharmacy.International journal of clinical pharmacy · 2025Article
- Approaches to address common barriers to colorectal cancer screening in rural communities of the CDC's colorectal cancer control program.Preventive oncology & epidemiology · 2025Article
- Trust or money? Barriers to health and healthcare behavior during the COVID-19 pandemic.PloS one · 2025Article
- Patient Willingness to Use a Pharmacy-Based Colorectal Cancer Screening Service: A National Survey of U.S. Adults.Cancer epidemiology, biomarkers & prevention : a publication of the American Association for Cancer Research, cosponsored by the American Society of Preventive Oncology · 2024Article
- How pharmacists would design and implement a community pharmacy-based colorectal cancer screening program.Preventive oncology & epidemiology · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
15 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Colorectal cancer (CRC) is a common and preventable cancer. CRC screening is underutilized, particularly within medically underserved communities. Most interventions aimed at increasing CRC screening are delivered through primary care clinics. Pharmacies are more accessible than traditional primary care settings and may be ideally suited for delivering CRC screening and increasing access. Fecal immunochemical test is an at-home, stool-based CRC screening test that could be distributed through pharmacies. The purpose of our study was to assess patient perspectives on receiving fecal immunochemical test-based CRC screening through pharmacies. We conducted semi-structured interviews with participants residing in North Carolina and Washington. Interviews explored acceptability and intervention design preferences for a pharmacy-based CRC screening program. The interview guide was informed by Andersen's Healthcare Utilization Model and the Theoretical Domains Framework. Interviews were conducted at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill and Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, audio-recorded, and transcribed. Patients perceived a pharmacy-based CRC screening program to be highly acceptable, citing factors such as ease of pharmacy access and avoiding co-pays for an office visit. Some concerns about privacy and coordination with patients' primary care provider tempered acceptability. Trust and positive relationships with providers and pharmacists as well as seamless care across the CRC screening continuum also were viewed as important. Patients viewed pharmacy-based CRC screening as an acceptable option for CRC screening. To improve programmatic success, it will be important to ensure privacy, determine how communication between the pharmacy and the patient's provider will take place, and establish closed-loop care, particularly for patients with abnormal results.
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.