ArticlePreventing chronic disease2026
A Critical Evaluation of Contextual Factors Affecting the Implementation of Pharmacist-Led Colorectal Cancer Screening: A Scoping Narrative Hybrid Review.
Article in Preventing chronic disease, 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
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: Colorectal cancer (CRC) is among the most preventable cancers and causes more than 50,000 deaths annually in the US. Screening disparities persist in rural versus urban populations and in populations with inadequate access to care. Community pharmacies, given their accessibility and trusted role in preventive care, represent a promising setting to expand CRC screening. Methods: This scoping narrative hybrid review followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses Extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR) guidelines and the Arksey and O'Malley framework, along with other refinements. Literature searches were conducted in PubMed, Embase (via Elsevier), ProQuest, Medline (via OVID), and ClinicalTrials.gov by using broad key words related to CRC screening and pharmacy. Eligible studies included US-based studies describing pharmacist involvement in community pharmacy CRC screening. Data were synthesized by using the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research, with strategies mapped to the Implementation Research Logic Model. Results: Ten US studies met inclusion criteria: 1 randomized community-pharmacy intervention trial, 1 pilot implementation study, 3 stakeholder qualitative studies, and 5 national or statewide surveys. Key barriers included lack of reimbursement, workflow constraints, pharmacist knowledge gaps, and limited care coordination. Facilitators included high patient willingness, trust in pharmacies, compatibility with existing workflows, and professional support from pharmacists and providers. Evidence-based strategies included targeted pharmacist training, workflow reminders, formal referral agreements with primary care, and patient engagement initiatives. Policy reforms to establish reimbursement and strengthen information exchange were identified as essential for sustainability. Conclusion: Community pharmacies are well positioned to expand CRC screening access. Addressing reimbursement, training, workflow, and coordination barriers through evidence-based strategies and supportive policy can enable pharmacist-delivered CRC screening to reduce disparities and improve population health outcomes.
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.