Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41948176›Full record

ArticleBMJ public health2026

Mapping colorectal cancer screening workflows in primary care.

Elise A Robertson, Cory B Lutgen, Joseph William LeMaster, Christina M Hester

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMJ public health, 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

4 authors.

Elise A RobertsonResearch, DARTNet Institute, Aurora, Colorado, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7255-8829
Cory B LutgenResearch, DARTNet Institute, Aurora, Colorado, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6589-4557
Joseph William LeMasterResearch, DARTNet Institute, Aurora, Colorado, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3026-830X
Christina M HesterResearch, DARTNet Institute, Aurora, Colorado, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5046-3415

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Introduction: Colorectal cancer (CRC) is preventable and treatable when detected early, but mortality from the disease remains high due to low uptake of preventive screening. Primary care plays a crucial role in CRC screening, but still often falls short of screening targets. We sought to map the CRC screening workflows of primary care clinics to describe how preventive CRC screening for normal risk patients is conducted, and how these workflows differ across clinic types. Methods: Eight primary care clinics were recruited with 'high' or 'low' rates of CRC screening. Clinicians and staff from each clinic were interviewed about their CRC screening workflow. Workflow maps were created based on individual interview responses, then reviewed and revised in collaboration with each clinic. Interview data and resulting workflow maps were evaluated for similarities and differences across clinic characteristics. Results: CRC screening rates ranged from 54.5% to 90% across the eight clinics. Clinics shared similarities in how they identified patients eligible for CRC screening, how they communicated the need for screening, the types of screening tests offered and how they communicated test results. Clinics with higher rates of CRC screening particularly described more communication of screening need, more emphasis on screening during the clinical conversation and workflow processes to follow up on missing results. Conclusions: The CRC screening workflows described by clinics shared common pathway stages, but variation in how these stages were executed indicates the benefit of patient decision tools, clinical communication strategies, patient navigation and results tracking to increase CRC screening uptake.

Indexed as

Health PersonnelPreventive MedicineQualitative Research

Identifiers

PMID41948176
PMCPMC13052632

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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 Socratic graph.