ArticleBMC public health2025
Participants' and non-participants' views of workplace-based colorectal cancer screening in Japan: a secondary qualitative study.
Article in BMC public health, 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.
- Policy frameworks for promoting public hospital development in major economies: implications for China.Frontiers in public health · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundColorectal cancer (CRC) screening is one of the main causes of death in high-income countries. In Japan, cancer screening programmes are delivered by different insurers, and these programmes are based mainly on communities and workplaces. Although several surveys have suggested participation rates are higher in workplace-based programmes, the experiences and views of participants and non-participants are poorly understood.
methodsWe conducted a secondary qualitative analysis of transcripts from interviews with people who shared their experiences and/or views of employer-based CRC screenings. By using a qualitative database called DIPEx-Japan, we purposely selected participants who had been on social insurance which indicated they were eligible for workplace-based cancer screening. We excluded (i) individuals with a history of inflammatory colorectal diseases; (ii) individuals who stated that they had been exclusively on National Health Insurance; and (iii) individuals who did not mention workplace-based screening. We conducted a thematic analysis for the selected interviews.
resultsWe selected 24 cases for analysis. The participants were encouraged to attend workplace-based CRC screening alongside other annual legislated health check-ups or by offering financial assistance to attend comprehensive general health check-ups in hospitals that also include screening by default. Two interviewees who had not attended workplace-based screening said that it was not provided as a mandatory option. The participants often lacked the information required to make an informed choice regarding their participation in workplace-based screening. Several interviewees who had not attended further examinations explained that they were not informed of the necessity or purpose of the screening. Follow-up strategies varied across employers. However, there was an indication that interviewees who had an established relationship with healthcare professionals expressed their willingness to take up further examinations if needed and continued to participate in screening after their retirement.
conclusionsWorkplace-based cancer screening programmes may improve uptake of cancer screening because of their mandatory arrangements. However, better communication is needed to explain the risks and benefits of screening which will support their decisions to take up further examinations or encourage continuous participation in screening.
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.