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 accessAbstract
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
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.
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
Qualitative Data Analysis: An Expanded Sourcebook
(1994) · Journal of Environmental Psychology · doi:10.1016/s0272-4944(05)80231-2 · Cited by 48,420
Research Design: Qualitative, Quantitative, and Mixed Methods Approaches
Creswell, J. W. (1994) · Cited by 35,204
Designing and Conducting Mixed Methods Research
Robinson, P. (2007) · Australian and New Zealand Journal of Public Health · doi:10.1111/j.1753-6405.2007.00096.x · Cited by 23,258
Research Design: Qualitative, Quantitative, and Mixed Methods Approaches
Sloane-Seale, A. (2009) · Canadian Journal of University Continuing Education · doi:10.21225/d54s3d · Cited by 14,328
Jemal, A., Siegel, R., Ward, E., Hao, Y., Xu, J., Murray, T., & Thun, M. J. (2008) · CA: A Cancer Journal for Clinicians · doi:10.3322/ca.2007.0010 · Cited by 10,188
(2009) · Cited by 6,311
Levin, B., Lieberman, D. A., McFarland, B., Andrews, K. S., Brooks, D., Bond, J., Dash, C., Giardiello, F. M., Glick, S., Johnson, D., et al. (2008) · Gastroenterology · doi:10.1053/j.gastro.2008.02.002 · Cited by 2,990
Qualitative Research in Health Care
(2006) · Wiley eBooks · doi:10.1002/9780470750841 · Cited by 2,712
Randomised study of screening for colorectal cancer with faecal-occult-blood test
Kronborg, O., Fenger, C., Olsen, J., Jørgensen, O. D., & Søndergaard, O. (1996) · The Lancet · doi:10.1016/s0140-6736(96)03430-7 · Cited by 2,501
Screening for Colorectal Cancer: U.S. Preventive Services Task Force Recommendation Statement
U.S. Preventive Services Task Force* (2008) · Annals of Internal Medicine · doi:10.7326/0003-4819-149-9-200811040-00243 · Cited by 1,959
Cited by
Current and future colorectal cancer screening strategies
Shaukat, A., & Levin, T. R. (2022) · Nature Reviews Gastroenterology & Hepatology · doi:10.1038/s41575-022-00612-y · Cited by 516
Baxter, N. T., Ruffin, M. T., Rogers, M. A. M., & Schloss, P. D. (2016) · Genome Medicine · doi:10.1186/s13073-016-0290-3 · Cited by 354
Honein-AbouHaidar, G. N., Kastner, M., Vuong, V., Perrier, L., Daly, C., Rabeneck, L., Straus, S., & Baxter, N. N. (2016) · Cancer Epidemiology, Biomarkers & Prevention · doi:10.1158/1055-9965.epi-15-0990 · Cited by 295
The Relative Importance of Patient-Reported Barriers to Colorectal Cancer Screening
Jones, R. M., Woolf, S. H., Cunningham, T. D., Johnson, R. E., Krist, A. H., Rothemich, S. F., & Vernon, S. W. (2010) · American Journal of Preventive Medicine · doi:10.1016/j.amepre.2010.01.020 · Cited by 150
Self-citationFerrer, R. A., Green, P. A., & Barrett, L. F. (2015) · Perspectives on Psychological Science · doi:10.1177/1745691615576755 · Cited by 58
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.