Trial reportPloS one2025
Acceptability and implementation potential of a health literacy intervention to increase colorectal cancer screening in deprived areas: A qualitative study of patients and general practitioners participating in a cluster randomized controlled trial.
Trial report in PloS one, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
15 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundColorectal cancer (CCR) is one of the leading causes of death worldwide. Early detection remains a highly effective strategy for curing this disease. In France, despite a free organised screening programme for people aged between 50 and 74, participation rates remain suboptimal. Socioeconomic position and health literacy levels exacerbate the situation, with the lowest screening rates observed in the most socially disadvantaged areas. This study assessed patients' and General Practitioners' (GP) views on the acceptability of an intervention to increase screening uptake using a simple brochure and video on the importance and process of CCR screening.
methodWe conducted a cross-sectional qualitative study using semi-structured interviews with patients (n = 24) and GPs (n = 22) who used or participated in the DECODE project intervention. The interviews were conducted by telephone or videoconference and analysed thematically using Nvivo software and dual independent coding.
results95% of GPs expressed a clear preference for the video over the brochure. Patients had varied results with 50% preferring the video, as it demonstrated how to do the test, versus the brochure. The humorous and de-dramatising aspects of the video were the two key factors highlighted by interviewees. However, support from healthcare staff (GPs, nurses, etc.) is still essential, in supporting patients in prevention. This presents a challenge for GPs, who are frequently constrained by time limitations during consultations.
conclusionOur findings emphasize the need to tailor promotional materials for both patients and healthcare professionals to improve CCR screening uptake, balancing digital efficiency with maintaining core human relationships in healthcare. Such intervention can be integrated into different workflows. The addition of video into national CRC screening programs might also help. Targeting CRC screening interventions at provider-patient interactions, ensuring they are tailored, accessible, and engaging, is key to reducing disparities.
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.