Cited by 295Colorectal Cancer Screening and DetectionGlobal Cancer Incidence and ScreeningWomen's cancer prevention and management

Systematic Review and Meta-study Synthesis of Qualitative Studies Evaluating Facilitators and Barriers to Participation in Colorectal Cancer Screening

Honein-AbouHaidar, Gladys N., Kastner, Monika, Vuong, Vincent, Perrier, Laure, Daly, Corinne, Rabeneck, Linda, Straus, Sharon, Baxter, Nancy N.·2016·Cancer Epidemiology, Biomarkers & Prevention

Published version of a preprint

Abstract

Screening reduces the incidence, morbidity, and mortality of colorectal cancer, yet participation tends to be low. We undertook a systematic review and meta-study synthesis of qualitative studies to identify facilitators and barriers to colorectal cancer screening participation. We searched major bibliographic databases for records published in all languages from inception to February 2015. Included primary studies that elicited views and perceptions towards colorectal cancer screening were appraised for relevance and quality. We used a two-stage synthesis to create an interpretation of colorectal cancer screening decisions grounded in primary studies; a thematic analysis to group themes and systematically compare studies and a meta-synthesis to generate an expanded theory of colorectal cancer screening participation. Ninety-four studies were included. The decision to participate in colorectal cancer screening depended on an individual's awareness of colorectal cancer screening. Awareness affected views of cancer, attitudes towards colorectal cancer screening modalities, and motivation for screening. Factors mediating awareness included public education to address misconceptions, primary care physician efforts to recommend screening, and the influence of friends and family. Specific barriers to participation in populations with lower participation rates included language barriers, logistical challenges to attending screening tests, and cultural beliefs. This study identifies key barriers, facilitators, and mediators to colorectal cancer screening participation. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev; 25(6); 907–17. ©2016 AACR.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1158/1055-9965.epi-15-0990

Cites

6 of 6 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Honein-AbouHaidar, G. N., Kastner, M., Vuong, V., Perrier, L., Daly, C., Rabeneck, L., Straus, S., & Baxter, N. N.
Affiliations
  • St. Michael's Hospital (CA)
  • Cancer Care Ontario (CA)
Corresponding author
Baxter, Nancy N.
Venue
Cancer Epidemiology, Biomarkers & Prevention
Published
2016-05-31
Volume
25
Issue
6
Pages
907-917
ISSN
  • 1055-9965 (ISSN-L)
  • 1538-7755
OpenAlex
W2340122852
Cited by
295
References
6
Citations by year
2026: 30 · 2025: 31 · 2024: 35 · 2023: 38 · 2022: 36 · 2021: 37 · 2020: 36 · 2019: 19 · 2018: 14 · 2017: 15 · 2016: 3
FWCI
1.71
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Cancer Epidemiology Biomarkers & Prevention (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
Cancer Care Ontario and Canadian Cancer Society Research Institute (700803)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Oncology › Colorectal Cancer Screening and Detection
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Oncology › Global Cancer Incidence and Screening
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Women's cancer prevention and management
Keywords
colorectal cancer screening, screening uptake, barriers to screening, facilitators of screening, patient awareness, public education, social influence, language barriers, cultural beliefs, screening motivation, attitudes toward screening
MeSH terms
Communication Barriers, Decision Making, Female, Humans, Health Knowledge, Attitudes, Practice, Male, Motivation, Patients, Colorectal Neoplasms, Early Detection of Cancer

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