ArticleFamily medicine and community health2024
Patients' experiences with 'sludge' (administrative burden) in the cancer screening process and its relationship with screening completion, experience and health system distrust.
Article in Family medicine and community health, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Why do people trust (or mistrust) health organizations? A systematic review.International journal for equity in health · 2026Pooled it
- Prevalence of depressive and anxiety symptoms among patients consulting a rare disease outpatient clinic for rare and undiagnosed diseases in China.Orphanet journal of rare diseases · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objective'Sludge' refers to administrative burdens or frictions that preclude people from getting what they want or need (eg, duplicative forms, complicated instructions, long waiting times). This mixed methods study evaluated patients' perceptions of sludge in the colorectal cancer (CRC) screening process and some impacts of this sludge.
designWe employed an exploratory sequential mixed methods study design that comprised patient interviews and a patient survey. The interviews informed final survey revisions and captured contextual data about patients' experiences with sludge. Interview transcripts were inductively and deductively analysed to identify overarching themes. The survey quantified sludge, delayed or forgone screenings, screening experience (Net Promoter Score) and health system distrust (Health System Distrust Scale). We used χ
settingSoutheastern United States.
participantsPatients who were 45-75 years of age, at average risk for CRC and had either completed or been referred for CRC screening (colonoscopy or stool-based test) within the previous 12 months.
results22 interview participants and 255 survey participants completed the study. 38 (15%) survey participants rated their screening experience as poor (Net Promoter Score=0-7 out of 10). The mean (SD) Health System Distrust Scale score was 22.4 (6.3) out of 45 possible points (higher score=greater distrust). Perceptions of sludge in the CRC screening process varied, with long waiting times and burdensome communication being the most common sources (58% and 35% of participants, respectively). Sludge was positively associated with delayed or forgone screenings (OR=1.42, 95% CI 1.28, 1.57, p<0.001), poor screening experience (OR=1.15, 95% CI 1.04, 1.28, p=0.009) and health system distrust (β=0.47, p<0.001). Qualitative findings add descriptive detail about sludge encountered, context to impacts experienced, and illustrate the heavy emotional impact of sludge: '
conclusionEfforts to reduce sludge in the CRC screening process may improve timely completion of CRC screening, enhance patient experience and restore trust in the health system.
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.