Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41698724›Full record

ArticleBMJ open2026

Effectiveness and acceptability of interventions to improve faecal immunochemical test (FIT) return in both asymptomatic (screening) and symptomatic populations: protocol for a systematic review of qualitative and quantitative evidence.

Naseeb Ezaydi, Matthew Kurien, Oliver Allchin, Katie Biggs, Nupur Chowdhury, David Humes, Ian Kellar, Savita Shanbhag, Jennifer Brown

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMJ open, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

9 authors.

Naseeb EzaydiSchool of Medicine and Population Health, The University of Sheffield, Sheffield, UK n.ezaydi@sheffield.ac.uk.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-2642-1108
Matthew KurienSchool of Medicine and Population Health, The University of Sheffield, Sheffield, UK.
Oliver AllchinThe University Library, The University of Sheffield, Sheffield, UK.ORCID http://orcid.org/0009-0000-4839-9725
Katie BiggsSchool of Medicine and Population Health, The University of Sheffield, Sheffield, UK.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-4468-7417
Nupur ChowdhurySchool of Medicine and Population Health, The University of Sheffield, Sheffield, UK.
David HumesFaculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, University of Nottingham, Nottingham, UK.
Ian KellarSchool of Psychology, The University of Sheffield, Sheffield, UK.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-1608-5216
Savita ShanbhagHywel Dda University Health Board, Carmarthen, UK.
Jennifer BrownSchool of Medicine and Population Health, The University of Sheffield, Sheffield, UK.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionColorectal cancer (CRC) is the fourth most common cancer in the UK and second leading cause of cancer-related deaths. The faecal immunochemical test (FIT) is a non-invasive home-based test used for both symptomatic assessment and population-based screening. However, approximately 30% of screening FIT kits and 10% of symptomatic FIT kits are never returned. Under-served populations, including ethnic minorities, socioeconomically deprived communities and those with mental health conditions, experience particularly low FIT return rates, contributing to health inequalities in CRC outcomes. This systematic review aims to synthesise evidence on the effectiveness and acceptability of interventions to improve FIT returns in both asymptomatic screening and symptomatic populations, with particular focus on under-served communities. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: We will conduct a systematic review of qualitative and quantitative evidence. We will search Scopus, MedLine via Ovid, CINAHL via Ebsco and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials from September 2010 onwards, supplemented by reference screening and trial registry searches. Eligible studies will include randomised controlled trials, quasi-experimental studies, observational studies, qualitative studies, mixed-methods studies and implementation studies examining FIT interventions in screening or symptomatic populations. Two reviewers will independently screen search results for eligible studies. Data extraction will capture study characteristics, population demographics, intervention components and outcomes including FIT return rates, acceptability, feasibility and implementation factors. Quantitative data will undergo systematic tabulation and meta-analysis where appropriate, with narrative synthesis for heterogeneous studies. Qualitative data will be analysed using framework-based thematic analysis, mapping findings to both the theoretical domains framework and theoretical framework of acceptability. A mixed-methods synthesis will integrate quantitative and qualitative findings to identify intervention characteristics, implementation strategies and contextual factors associated with improved outcomes across different population groups. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethics approval is not required as this systematic review will analyse published studies. Findings will be disseminated through peer-reviewed publication and conference presentations. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD420251111663.

Indexed as

Colorectal NeoplasmsEarly Detection of CancerMass ScreeningOccult BloodPatient Acceptance of Health CareHumansQualitative ResearchResearch DesignSystematic Reviews as TopicEarly Detection of CancerGastrointestinal tumoursMass Screening

Identifiers

PMID41698724
PMCPMC12911743

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.