ArticleBMJ open2025
Patient experiences and expectations of faecal immunochemical testing for investigation of colorectal cancer symptoms: a cross-sectional qualitative interview study with patients and practitioners in the UK.
Article in BMJ open, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Sociodemographic variation in symptomatic faecal immunochemical testing return: a population-based analysis of 125 659 patients.The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners · 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
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesFaecal immunochemical testing (FIT) is now commonplace in the UK to prioritise symptomatic patients for urgent gastrointestinal investigation. The test requires a stool sample to be collected at home by the patient and returned for analysis. In this qualitative study, we sought to understand the feasibility and acceptability of FIT-based triage for patients.
designA cross-sectional, qualitative, experiential interview study.
settingRecruitment was through three participating UK NHS sites (Yorkshire, Midlands, North-East). Health professionals were also identified through membership of the BSG/ACPGBI Symptomatic FIT Guideline Development Group and snowball sampling.
participantsWe interviewed 21 patients who had completed FIT and been referred for colonoscopy and 30 primary and secondary care health professionals involved in symptomatic FIT delivery.
resultsCompletion of FIT was unproblematic from the perspective of patients who returned the test. However, health professionals expressed concern over non-return. Among patients, understanding of the purpose of FIT and the meaning of results varied. Health professionals acknowledged that ensuring patient understanding of these can be challenging. Patients believed colonoscopy was less likely to miss cancer than FIT. Patients with a family or personal history of cancer were particularly anxious and wanted the reassurance of colonoscopy, even with a negative FIT result.
conclusionsWe found no major barriers to the use of FIT in prioritising symptomatic patients for urgent investigation. Improving communication might increase compliance and, possibly, acceptability of non-referral for colonoscopy in the case of a negative test result.
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.