ArticleBMJ open2026
Understanding patient experiences of a community-based intervention to improve bowel screening uptake: a mixed-method evaluation of Call for a Kit clinics.
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.
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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesThe study explored patient experiences of the Call for a Kit (CFAK) intervention, a community-based initiative designed to improve bowel cancer screening uptake and examined the mechanisms that may support participation among non-responders.
designA convergent parallel mixed-methods design was employed, combining quantitative surveys and qualitative interviews.
settingThe evaluation was conducted in general practices across Lancashire and South Cumbria, Northwest England, where CFAK clinics were delivered by an external health promotion team based within the Community Voluntary Services. These clinics target practices with low screening uptake.
participantsA total of 113 CFAK attendees aged 54 and above, and who had missed their most recent screening invitation, completed a patient experience survey. 12 participants were purposively sampled for follow-up interviews. OUTCOME MEASURES: Statistical analyses examined associations between patient experience and screening behaviours, including kit ordering and intention to complete the screening kit. Thematic analysis explored barriers and facilitators to participation, as well as experiences of CFAK clinics.
resultsPatient experience scores were significantly higher among women than men and were positively associated with intention to complete the kit, though not with kit ordering. Qualitative findings indicated that CFAK addressed key barriers such as low awareness, confusion and emotional discomfort by providing personalised education, reassurance and culturally sensitive support. Participants particularly valued the relational aspects of the intervention, including the face-to-face delivery and communication in preferred languages.
conclusionsCFAK clinics appear to enhance psychological capability and motivation for bowel screening by offering tailored, inclusive and supportive care. These findings highlight the value of patient-centred approaches in addressing inequalities in cancer screening and offer insights for the design of future community-based interventions.
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.