ArticleBMC primary care2025
A qualitative study of a new metric for estimating early-onset colorectal cancer risk in male veterans: "Colon Age".
Article in BMC primary care, 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.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundIn several Western nations, cancers of the colon and rectum have been steadily increasing in persons younger than age 50. Although the age at which to begin colorectal cancer (CRC) screening in the U.S. was lowered to 45 years in 2018, uptake of screening in persons aged 45-49 has been slow. Based on risk factors for CRC prior to age 50 and population-based CRC prevalence data, we previously defined a new metric for estimating the risk of CRC prior to age 50 called "Colon Age". The objective of this study was to obtain qualitative data on the acceptance, feasibility, and clinical utility of this metric from patients and primary care providers.
methodsWith permission from their providers, we recruited a convenience sample of average-risk male patients 35-49 years of age during their primary care appointment. Primary care providers were recruited through email invitation. Following informed consent, two interviewers conducted semi-structured qualitative interviews with participants. Interviews were conducted until saturation was reached. Interviewers were not involved in the tool's development. The audio-recorded interviews were transcribed, de-identified, and analyzed using the constant comparison method.
resultsThirty-one (23 male Veteran patients, 8 primary care providers) interviews were conducted. Patients (mean age 47 years, 100% male) expressed willingness to follow screening recommendations from their provider, although most were unaware of other screening options beyond colonoscopy. Overall, patients expressed acceptance of the Colon Age concept and tool, finding it easy to understand, helpful for staying informed of their health, and a way to empower themselves in their screening decisions. Providers (mean age 53 years; 50% female) also found the tool acceptable, commenting on its usefulness for starting screening conversations with patients and improving screening uptake. Providers questioned the tool's time commitment, consistency with practice guidelines, and the process of tool development.
conclusionsIn this age of precision medicine, the Colon Age tool-despite some limitations-appears to be useful to patients and providers in individualizing risk for CRC and may improve uptake of screening in persons younger than age 50.
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.