ArticleBMC primary care2025
Co-designing a general practice-led intervention and implementation strategy to increase bowel cancer screening through general practice: a qualitative study.
Article in BMC primary care, 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
9 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveRegular screening can reduce the burden of colorectal cancer (CRC) and general practice involvement has been demonstrated to improve screening uptake and CRC outcomes. Our study explores Australian general practice stakeholders' current involvement in supporting organised CRC screening through the National Bowel Cancer Screening Program (NBCSP) and their views of the feasibility and applicability of evidence-based intervention components.
methodsA qualitative study was undertaken using focus groups (n = 12) with 45 participants that included General Practitioners (GPs), practice nurses, practice staff and program support staff from across Australia. The Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR) was used as a guiding framework for deductive thematic content analysis.
resultsThe findings indicated that proactive GP involvement in the NBCSP is challenged by clinical information system limitations, time constraints, and competing priorities. Participants expressed a willingness to support CRC screening activities, understood the effectiveness of screening, but placed little focus on using the NBCSP as the primary method of CRC screening. An intervention to increase NBCSP participation involving a risk assessment tool, electronic reminder prompt, clinical information system and workflow enhancement, and education was viewed as feasible and applicable to practice if identified implementation challenges in the inner setting and individuals CFIR domains were addressed.
conclusionsGeneral practice stakeholders acknowledge their potential for a more enhanced role in supporting the NBCSP and contributing to reducing the impact of CRC. A multi-component general practice-led intervention to promote an enhanced role was perceived as acceptable. To improve feasibility and applicability, the intervention needs to be integrated, straightforward, time-efficient, and supported by incentives and a whole-of-practice approach.
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.