Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39291807›Full record

ArticleJournal of evaluation in clinical practice2025

Barriers and facilitators to faecal immunochemical testing in symptomatic populations: A rapid systematic scoping review and gap analysis.

Sienna Hamer-Kiwacz, Hannah Berntsson, George Galloway, Ann-Marie Tran, Jia Yun Tan, Daniel Hind, Matthew Kurien

Abstract readScoping Review
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of evaluation in clinical practice, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed, 1 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

3 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Observational
  3. 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.

Sienna Hamer-KiwaczDivision of Population Health, School of Medicine and Population Health, The University of Sheffield, Sheffield, UK.
Hannah BerntssonDivision of Population Health, School of Medicine and Population Health, The University of Sheffield, Sheffield, UK.
George GallowayThe Medical School, The University of Sheffield, Sheffield, UK.
Ann-Marie TranThe Medical School, The University of Sheffield, Sheffield, UK.
Jia Yun TanThe Medical School, The University of Sheffield, Sheffield, UK.
Daniel HindDivision of Population Health, School of Medicine and Population Health, The University of Sheffield, Sheffield, UK.
Matthew KurienDivision of Clinical Medicine, School of Medicine and Population Health, The University of Sheffield, Sheffield, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-4227-9500

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

aimFaecal immunochemical testing (FIT) is used to triage people with signs or symptoms of a colorectal cancer (CRC). Recent guidelines have recommended further research to improve access, uptake and return of FIT. This systematic scoping review aims to understand the barriers and facilitators to FIT testing in symptomatic patients.

methodQualitative, quantitative and mixed-methods studies published after September 2013 were included. MEDLINE, EMBASE and PsycINFO databases were searched to identify publications examining barriers and facilitators to FIT. Initially, the data underwent thematic analysis, and subsequently, factors were aligned to components of the Capability, Opportunity, Motivation, Behaviour model. All outcomes are presented in adherence to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines.

resultsOne thousand two hundred thirty-two papers were identified; 11 met the inclusion criteria. Barriers and facilitators were identified at the patient (e.g., knowledge), provider (e.g., general practitioner awareness) and service level (e.g., method of providing FIT kits). Factors were categorised into the subcomponents of the model: psychological capability (e.g., lack of FIT knowledge), reflective motivation (e.g., beliefs regarding FIT sampling and faeces being unhygienic) and automatic motivation (e.g., embarrassment, scary, anxiety provoking). Gaps in knowledge emerged in three domains: (1) patient experience, (2) FIT pathway and (3) healthcare professionals experience of FIT.

conclusionThis systematic scoping review provides a summary of the literature on FIT uptake, and identified factors across multiple levels and components. To increase adherence to FIT completion within primary care, a multifaceted theory and evidence-based approach is needed to underpin future behavioural science interventions.

Indexed as

Colorectal NeoplasmsEarly Detection of CancerFecesOccult BloodHealth Knowledge, Attitudes, PracticeHumansMotivationPatient Acceptance of Health Carediagnosismedical researchprimary caresystematic reviews

Identifiers

PMID39291807
PMCPMC11938400

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.