ArticleFrontiers in medicine2024
A qualitative interview study on colorectal cancer screening in China.
Article in Frontiers in medicine, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: The effectiveness of triage screening for colorectal cancer (CRC) is not fully achieved in Chinese populations, mainly due to low compliance to colonoscopy follow-up. This study aimed to collect viewpoints of experts in China on ongoing screening programs and emerging screening tests for CRC, which may help to improve effectiveness of CRC screening in the country. Methods: We conducted 15 semi-structured interviews with experts involving CRC screening in China during October to November of 2020. Interview topics included personal characteristics, work context, opinions on ongoing screening programs, challenges and opportunities in optimization of screening strategies, and prospects for CRC screening in near future. To analyze the data, we used a generic qualitative research approach inspired by grounded theory, including open, axial, and selective coding. Results: This analysis revealed a total of 83 initial categories, 37 subcategories and 10 main categories, which included 4 core categories of current modality for CRC screening, factors influencing screening effectiveness, optimization of CRC screening modality, and prospects for development of CRC screening. The results provide insight into the factors underlying the challenges of the ongoing CRC screening programs in China: the most important concern is the low compliance to colonoscopy, followed by the low specificity of the currently-used initial tests. The experts proposed to use quantitative instead of qualitative fecal immunochemical test (FIT), and optimize risk assessment tools to improve specificity of initial tests. Regarding the emerging screening tests, 9 of 15 experts did not think that the novel techniques are good enough to replace the current tests, but can be used complementarily in opportunistic screening for CRC. Conclusion: The viewpoints of Chinese experts suggested that use quantitative FIT or optimize risk assessment tools may help to identify high-risk individuals of CRC more accurately, improve adherence to colonoscopy, and thus fully achieve the effectiveness of screening.
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.