Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38658815›Full record

ArticleBMC primary care2024

Perceptions and beliefs of general practitioners on their role in the cancer screening programmes in the Netherlands: a mixed-methods study.

Thomas H G Bongaerts, Frederike L Büchner, Vera Nierkens, Matty R Crone, Onno R Guicherit, Mattijs E Numans

Abstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in BMC primary care, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
–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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. 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

6 authors.

Thomas H G BongaertsHealth Campus The Hague, Leiden University Medical Center, The Hague, the Netherlands. t.h.g.bongaerts@lumc.nl.
Frederike L BüchnerHealth Campus The Hague, Leiden University Medical Center, The Hague, the Netherlands.
Vera NierkensDepartment of Public Health and Primary Care, Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, the Netherlands.
Matty R CroneHealth Campus The Hague, Leiden University Medical Center, The Hague, the Netherlands.
Onno R GuicheritUniversity Cancer Center Leiden - The Hague, Haaglanden Medical Center, The Hague, the Netherlands.
Mattijs E NumansHealth Campus The Hague, Leiden University Medical Center, The Hague, the Netherlands.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundIn the Netherlands, population-based cancer screening programmes (CSPs) are organized aiming at cervical, breast and colorectal cancer. For a CSP to be effective, high participation rates are essential; however, there is an alarming downward trend, including wide regional variation in screening uptake. General practitioner (GP) involvement can have a stimulating effect on screening participation. Current GP involvement is however, limited, varies between the programmes and has changed over time. Unexplored is what GPs think of their role(s) in the CSPs. The aim of this study was therefore to map the perceptions and beliefs of GPs regarding their current and future role in the Dutch CSPs.

methodsA mixed-methods sequential explanatory study was conducted in the Leiden/The Hague area of the Netherlands, between the end of 2021 and 2022. A questionnaire was developed and distributed among 110 GPs. The aggregated results obtained from the questionnaires served as starting points for conducting semi-structured interviews, with purposefully selected GPs. With this sequential approach we aimed to further enhance the understanding of the questionnaire data, and delved into the topics that emerged from the questionnaire responses.

resultsIn total, 46 GPs completed the online questionnaire (response rate 42%). Subsequent five semi-structured comprehensive interviews were conducted. GPs indicated that they frequently encounter the CSP in their daily practice and consider it important. They also emphasised it is important that GPs remain closely involved with the CSPs in the future. Nevertheless, GPs also repeatedly mentioned that they are not eager to take on more logistical/organizational tasks. They are however willing to empower CSPs in a positive manner.

conclusionGPs were generally positive about the CSPs and their current role within these programmes. Nevertheless, several options have been proposed to improve the CSPs, especially to increase screening uptake for populations in a socioeconomically disadvantaged position. Since it is of utmost importance to screen those who are most at risk of developing the screening-specific tumours, efforts should be made to achieve this goal.

Indexed as

Attitude of Health PersonnelEarly Detection of CancerGeneral PractitionersPhysician's RoleAdultBreast NeoplasmsColorectal NeoplasmsFemaleHumansMaleMass ScreeningMiddle AgedNetherlandsSurveys and QuestionnairesUterine Cervical NeoplasmsCancer screeningGeneral practitionerNetherlandsParticipationPrimary care

Identifiers

PMID38658815
PMCPMC11040810

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.