ArticleHealth expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy2025
Public and Healthcare Professional Attitudes Towards Risk-Stratified Bowel Screening: A Qualitative Study Using an Info-Comic Book.
Article in Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy, 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
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundScreening for bowel cancer (colorectal cancer, CRC) is well established in many high-income countries. There has been considerable interest in moving towards risk-based bowel screening to increase the efficiency and effectiveness of screening. This UK-based qualitative study explored public and healthcare professionals (HCPs)' attitudes towards risk-based bowel screening.
methodsFive virtual focus groups were held with members of the public of bowel screening age (60-74 in England; 50-74 in Scotland) and HCPs to explore attitudes towards risk-based bowel screening. Public participants (n = 12) were invited through our existing patient and public involvement (PPI) networks. HCPs (n = 11) were recruited through existing networks and with the support of screening hubs. A co-created info-comic book was used to facilitate discussion on bowel cancer risk factors. Following transcription, qualitative data were analysed thematically.
resultsThere was consensus that more intense screening for those of higher risk is acceptable, but this should not imply less screening for those of lower risk. There was some agreement between the public and HCPs over concerns with undue focus on risk factors, which could disadvantage those with minimal risk factors. There was also a desire to streamline existing bowel screening across the UK nations. It was felt that the current screening programme, by treating people with all risk levels in the same way, is equitable-so clear communication is needed if this is to be changed.
conclusionFindings indicate a preference that any changes to the bowel screening programme should enhance the current screening offer, and not compromise screening offered to individuals deemed to be low risk. Changes need to be acceptable to the public and HCPs-if unacceptable, there is a risk of lowering bowel screening uptake, which could potentially exacerbate health inequities in screening outcomes. PATIENT AND PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION: The info-comic book was co-created with two PPI networks, INVOLVE Hull and People and Research Together, Bowel Research UK, supported by Humber All Nations Alliance. The PPI network provided invaluable feedback on the development of the info-comic book, to ensure inclusivity and avoid the reproduction of dominant stereotypes associated with bowel cancer.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic 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 Socratic graph.