ReviewJournal of the Royal Society of New Zealand2025
From small steps to big impact: what we learnt from the National Bowel Screening Programme.
Review in Journal of the Royal Society of New Zealand, 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Implementation of the National Bowel Screening Programme for Aotearoa New Zealand has been a 26-year journey with many challenges and obstacles. This paper describes lessons learnt. Despite international evidence of efficacy from studies before the year 2000, country-specific decisions shaped by committed multidisciplinary teams were required. Before introducing bowel screening, many initiatives to improve related healthcare delivery were implemented, which often led to systemic improvements. A pilot study was needed to demonstrate that bowel screening was safe, affordable, and could be delivered equitably. Despite comprehensive plans based on the Pilot with ongoing adjustments, to date, the programme has fallen short of achieving equity for participation for Māori and Pacific peoples. The delays involved in developing the required population IT system were challenging resulting in a period where two different IT systems were being used simultaneously. This should be avoided. General Practice was involved from the outset, with an increasing role as the programme developed. Critics of progress were sometimes vocal, but input from global leaders in bowel screening helped keep the programme on track to national implementation. The programme has delivered in terms of safety and early diagnosis of cancer. Its lessons provide a foundation for future public health initiatives.
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.