Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 324

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 48 of the 48 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Patient-Reported Barriers to Colorectal Cancer Screening

Open access
Jones, Resa M., Devers, Kelly J., Kuzel, Anton J., Woolf, Steven H.·2010·American Journal of Preventive Medicine

Abstract

Background Barriers experienced by patients influence the uptake of colorectal cancer (CRC) screening. Prior research has quantified how often patients encounter these challenges but has generally not revealed their complex perspective and experience with barriers. Methods A two-part, mixed-methods study was conducted of primary care patients recruited from Virginia Ambulatory Care Outcome Research Network practices. First, in June–July 2005 a survey was mailed to 660 patients aged 50–75 years posing an open-ended question about “the most important barrier” to CRC screening. Second, beginning in October 2005 seven gender- and largely race-specific focus groups involving 40 patients aged 45–75 years were conducted. Beginning in October 2005, survey verbatim responses were coded and quantitatively analyzed and focus group transcripts were qualitatively analyzed. Results Responses to the open-ended survey question, answered by 74% of respondents, identified fear and the bowel preparation as the most important barriers to screening. Only 1.6% of responses cited the absence of physician advice. Focus group participants cited similar issues and other previously reported barriers, but their remarks exposed the intricacies of complex barriers, such as fear, lack of information, time, the role of physicians, and access to care. Participants also cited barriers that have little documentation in the literature, such as low self-worth, “para-sexual” sensitivities, fatalism, negative past experiences with testing, and skepticism about the financial motivation behind screening recommendations. Conclusions Mixed-methods analysis helps to disaggregate the complex nuances that influence patient behavior. In this study, patients explained the web of influences on knowledge, motivation, and ability to undergo CRC screening, which clinicians and policymakers should consider in designing interventions to increase the level of screening.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.amepre.2010.01.021

Cites

48 of 48 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 48 references

Cited by

See all 324

Metadata

Authors
Jones, R. M., Devers, K. J., Kuzel, A. J., & Woolf, S. H.
Venue
American Journal of Preventive Medicine
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2010-05
Volume
38
Issue
5
Pages
508-516
ISSN
0749-3797 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W173752998
Cited by
324
References
48
FWCI
3.85
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
green

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Patient-Reported Barriers to Colorectal Cancer Screening. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1016/j.amepre.2010.01.021
The paper
Jones, R. M., Devers, K. J., Kuzel, A. J., & Woolf, S. H. (2010). Patient-Reported Barriers to Colorectal Cancer Screening. American Journal of Preventive Medicine. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amepre.2010.01.021

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.