Skip to main content
  • AACR Publications
    • Blood Cancer Discovery
    • Cancer Discovery
    • Cancer Epidemiology, Biomarkers & Prevention
    • Cancer Immunology Research
    • Cancer Prevention Research
    • Cancer Research
    • Clinical Cancer Research
    • Molecular Cancer Research
    • Molecular Cancer Therapeutics

AACR logo

  • Register
  • Log in
  • My Cart
Advertisement

Main menu

  • Home
  • About
    • The Journal
    • AACR Journals
    • Subscriptions
    • Permissions and Reprints
    • Reviewing
  • Articles
    • OnlineFirst
    • Current Issue
    • Past Issues
    • CEBP Focus Archive
    • Meeting Abstracts
    • Progress and Priorities
    • Collections
      • COVID-19 & Cancer Resource Center
      • Disparities Collection
      • Editors' Picks
      • "Best of" Collection
  • For Authors
    • Information for Authors
    • Author Services
    • Best of: Author Profiles
    • Informing Public Health Policy
    • Submit
  • Alerts
    • Table of Contents
    • Editors' Picks
    • OnlineFirst
    • Citation
    • Author/Keyword
    • RSS Feeds
    • My Alert Summary & Preferences
  • News
    • Cancer Discovery News
  • COVID-19
  • Webinars
  • Search More

    Advanced Search

  • AACR Publications
    • Blood Cancer Discovery
    • Cancer Discovery
    • Cancer Epidemiology, Biomarkers & Prevention
    • Cancer Immunology Research
    • Cancer Prevention Research
    • Cancer Research
    • Clinical Cancer Research
    • Molecular Cancer Research
    • Molecular Cancer Therapeutics

User menu

  • Register
  • Log in
  • My Cart

Search

  • Advanced search
Cancer Epidemiology, Biomarkers & Prevention
Cancer Epidemiology, Biomarkers & Prevention
  • Home
  • About
    • The Journal
    • AACR Journals
    • Subscriptions
    • Permissions and Reprints
    • Reviewing
  • Articles
    • OnlineFirst
    • Current Issue
    • Past Issues
    • CEBP Focus Archive
    • Meeting Abstracts
    • Progress and Priorities
    • Collections
      • COVID-19 & Cancer Resource Center
      • Disparities Collection
      • Editors' Picks
      • "Best of" Collection
  • For Authors
    • Information for Authors
    • Author Services
    • Best of: Author Profiles
    • Informing Public Health Policy
    • Submit
  • Alerts
    • Table of Contents
    • Editors' Picks
    • OnlineFirst
    • Citation
    • Author/Keyword
    • RSS Feeds
    • My Alert Summary & Preferences
  • News
    • Cancer Discovery News
  • COVID-19
  • Webinars
  • Search More

    Advanced Search

Reviews

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

Gladys N. Honein-AbouHaidar, Monika Kastner, Vincent Vuong, Laure Perrier, Corinne Daly, Linda Rabeneck, Sharon Straus and Nancy N. Baxter
Gladys N. Honein-AbouHaidar
1Department of Surgery, Li Ka Shing Knowledge Institute, St. Michael's Hospital, Toronto, Canada.
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Monika Kastner
2Knowledge Translation Program, Li Ka Shing Knowledge Institute, St. Michael's Hospital, Toronto, Canada.
3Dalla Lana School of Public Health, University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada.
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Vincent Vuong
1Department of Surgery, Li Ka Shing Knowledge Institute, St. Michael's Hospital, Toronto, Canada.
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Laure Perrier
2Knowledge Translation Program, Li Ka Shing Knowledge Institute, St. Michael's Hospital, Toronto, Canada.
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Corinne Daly
1Department of Surgery, Li Ka Shing Knowledge Institute, St. Michael's Hospital, Toronto, Canada.
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Linda Rabeneck
4Cancer Care Ontario, Toronto, Canada.
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Sharon Straus
2Knowledge Translation Program, Li Ka Shing Knowledge Institute, St. Michael's Hospital, Toronto, Canada.
5Institute of Health Policy, Management, and Evaluation, University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada.
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Nancy N. Baxter
1Department of Surgery, Li Ka Shing Knowledge Institute, St. Michael's Hospital, Toronto, Canada.
5Institute of Health Policy, Management, and Evaluation, University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada.
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • For correspondence: baxtern@smh.ca
DOI: 10.1158/1055-9965.EPI-15-0990 Published June 2016
  • Article
  • Figures & Data
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF
Loading

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.

Introduction

Colorectal cancer is a major health problem throughout the world (1). Colorectal cancer is the second most common cause of cancer-related death in the United States (2), Canada (3), and United Kingdom (4, 5). In 2014, an estimated 136,830 new colorectal cancer cases and 50,310 colorectal cancer deaths occurred in the United States (2) and 21,300 new colorectal cancer cases and 8,600 colorectal cancer deaths occurred in Canada (3). Screening for colorectal cancer can reduce the burden of the disease, yet participation in colorectal cancer screening is generally low (6, 7) and tends to be lower among ethnic minorities (8–11), individuals of low socioeconomic status (SES; refs. 8, 12–14), and may vary by gender (13–16). It is important to understand why certain individuals get screened while others do not, the system and social factors affecting the decision to participate, and aspects of screening that are valued and culturally acceptable.

Numerous qualitative studies have investigated perceptions and experiences with colorectal cancer screening participation (17–20). These studies have identified factors that affect screening decisions, as well as barriers and facilitators of colorectal cancer screening in a variety of settings. However, no systematic review has been conducted to capture the breadth and depth of this literature. A greater conceptual understanding of these factors is needed to direct the development of interventions aimed at improving overall colorectal cancer screening participation rates and reducing inequities in participation. We therefore designed our study to systematically review the qualitative literature and explore factors that determine the decision to participate in colorectal cancer screening. We also explored factors influencing screening in groups with previously reported low colorectal cancer screening participation (ethnic minorities, patients with low SES) and in men and women.

Materials and Methods

The methods for this systematic review have been published (21) and are summarized briefly. The reporting of our review was guided by the ENTREQ criteria (22).

Search strategy and selection criteria

We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, and PsycINFO for studies published in any language from inception to February 2015. A search strategy was developed using a combination of “colon/rectal/colorectal cancer,” “screening,” and “participation” medical subject headings and text words (Supplementary Table S1). A validated qualitative search strategy filter was used to optimize search results to include qualitative studies (23–26). Qualitative and mixed-methods studies (with a qualitative component) were considered relevant if they investigated perceptions of participation in colorectal cancer screening. Two reviewers independently applied eligibility criteria to identify potentially relevant articles. At each level of screening, disagreements were resolved by discussion. Figure 1 shows the process study selection according to the PRISMA guidelines (27).

Figure 1.
  • Download figure
  • Open in new tab
  • Download powerpoint
Figure 1.

Study selection PRISMA flow chart.

Data extraction

Using a standardized, pilot-tested form, two reviewers independently extracted data on study characteristics (authors, year of publication, country of conduct), study population (sample size, gender, age, ethnicity, SES); and the determinants of colorectal cancer screening participation (with corresponding exemplary quotes) categorized by gender, SES, and ethnicity, if available. Quality of included studies was assessed independently by the two reviewers using the Critical Appraisal Skills Programme (CASP) tool (28) and classified as meeting at least 8 of 10 criteria, 4 to 7 criteria, or less than 3 criteria according to the process described by Brennan and colleagues (29). Disagreements were resolved through discussion among reviewers and a third reviewer settled discrepancies.

Data analysis and synthesis

Consistent with the meta-study methodology (30), we used a two-stage synthesis of the data to create an interpretation of colorectal cancer screening decisions grounded in the primary studies.

Stage I comprised data analysis according to the three major steps of the meta-study review method. First, we performed meta-data analysis, which is an interpretive analysis of research findings from primary studies as reported by study authors. This involved using thematic analysis to group themes according to identified facilitators and barriers, and to systematically compare studies for similarities and differences across themes (31). Second, we used meta-method to clarify how the quality of included studies influenced the interpretation of findings. For example, information on study quality enhanced our understanding of the credibility and trustworthiness of the evidence, which was then used to strengthen our interpretations. Finally, we used meta-theory to examine how the use of theory in the primary studies influenced our interpretation of findings. When reported, we identified the specific theoretical frameworks (e.g., the Health Belief Model; ref. 32) considered by study authors.

Stage 2 involved meta-synthesis, a more in-depth process of data synthesis aimed at generating an expanded interpretation of colorectal cancer screening participation decisions grounded in primary studies and from triangulation of findings from the three steps in stage I. More specifically, we generated an interpretation by integrating the influence of the study authors' interpretation of the data (i.e., meta-data), the quality of studies (meta-method), and the theoretical frameworks or perspectives underpinning research reports (meta-theory).

Results

We identified 10,457 citations and screened 9,009 unique titles and abstracts for eligibility. Of these, we screened 514 articles in full text, and 94 articles were included in the analysis (Fig. 1). All studies, but one (33), were published between 2000 and 2014. Study methods included in-depth interviews (n = 48), focus groups (n = 37), and a combination of the two (n = 4), or telephone/paper surveys with a qualitative component (n = 5). Study characteristics are summarized in Supplementary Table S2. Most studies were conducted in United States (n = 61); the remainder in the United Kingdom (n = 11), Australia (n = 6), Canada (n = 5), New Zealand (n = 3), Spain (n = 3); and one each in China, France, Israel, Singapore, and Taiwan. The majority of studies included White Americans (n = 33), some were restricted to ethnic groups, including African Americans (n = 9) and Hispanic/Latino Americans (n = 6), while the rest included a mix of individuals. Populations were described as having high (n = 3), middle (n = 3), low (n = 24), and mixed (n = 22) SES, while some studies did not report SES status of participants (n = 42).

Results of meta-data analysis

Our findings revealed several themes across facilitator and barrier factors. Facilitators of colorectal cancer screening were individuals' awareness of colorectal cancer screening and its purpose, having positive attitude towards colorectal cancer screening tests, and the motivation to get screened; the converse of these were barriers to colorectal cancer screening (Table 1). Factors that influenced barriers or facilitators were termed modifying factors. Public education, primary care physician (PCP) recommendation/approach, and friends and family promoted colorectal cancer screening. While most factors were relevant to all population groups, we also found barriers that were specific to certain ethnic minorities, lower SES populations, and gender. The specific facilitator and barrier factors are described below.

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup
Table 1.

Themes, according to facilitators and barriers, associated with participation in colorectal cancer screening, with exemplary quotes

Facilitators of colorectal cancer screening participation.

Awareness of appropriate colorectal cancer screening and its purpose

Studies showed that individuals who were aware of appropriate colorectal cancer screening (34–36) and the indication for screening (i.e., when to start screening, screening test options, and periodicity; refs. 34, 37–40) were more supportive of screening and tended to be screened. They demonstrated an understanding that the purpose of colorectal cancer screening was to detect a potential problem early, and believed that it would be beneficial to find cancer early because of better treatment prospects (31, 36).

Positive attitudes towards colorectal cancer screening tests

Studies indicated that previous experience with screening influenced attitudes towards subsequent colorectal cancer screening tests. Many people were willing to repeat the test and also expressed preferences for one test over another (31). Some thought that FOBT was a convenient, non-invasive, non-painful test that can be done “in the privacy of your own home” (41). Others thought colonoscopy was a more thorough test compared with FOBT and some preferred colonoscopy over flexible sigmoidoscopy: “I would like to have the colonoscopy instead of just the flex sigmoidoscopy because there could be problems further on in there… If I was going to go through with this process, I think the colonoscopy is probably the most complete test” (42).

Motivation for screening

Several studies reported that individuals participated in colorectal cancer screening to provide a sense of relief and peace of mind that they did not have the disease: (10, 17, 34, 38, 42–54) “Put your mind at ease that you're not affected by whatever they are screening for” (54). Other motivating factors were maintaining and being proactive about their health to live longer: (10, 55–57) “This is all related to being very conscious of the age that I'm at… therefore you just need to be cognizant of that and take preventative steps to ensure that your longevity continues” (57). Having a close individual affected by colorectal cancer was a key driver for colorectal cancer screening (13, 52, 55, 58–62) as this increased a sense of vulnerability and the value of early detection. This was particularly true if the close individual survived because of early detection through screening.

Spouses were an instrumental motivator for screening; several studies found wives influenced and convinced their husbands to complete the test (13, 31, 34, 57, 58, 61–66). Some participants attributed their knowledge of colorectal cancer and colorectal cancer screening to friends, family, and partners (11, 16, 31, 35–37, 39, 40, 44, 46, 47, 51, 52, 58, 66–74). Friends or family members who experienced colorectal cancer and their suffering motivated individuals to be screened: “Believe me … you would not want to go through what Michael went through. Believe me you would not want to do it” (35). In contrast, some reported that their friend or family member's account of a negative experience with screening dissuaded them from having the test (20, 31, 45, 61, 70, 75–77). In addition, those who witnessed family and friends die of colorectal cancer or other cancers were less likely to see a benefit to screening: “I know people who found out they had cancer and they died in 2 months” (36).

Barriers to colorectal cancer screening participation.

Lack of awareness of colorectal cancer screening and poor understanding of its purpose

Studies revealed that many individuals did not have great awareness of colorectal cancer, including colorectal cancer prevalence and mortality, how colorectal cancer develops, and how it can be prevented. There was a lack of awareness of colorectal cancer screening modalities, the risks and benefits of screening, and the impact of screening on colorectal cancer mortality. With little knowledge about colorectal cancer, many people were not screened and some concluded that colorectal cancer is “not that important, or [I] would have heard about it” (9, 10, 13, 17–20, 31, 34, 36, 38, 41–48, 54, 55, 60, 63, 65–67, 69, 70, 78–85). In most studies, the main barrier to screening was poor understanding of its goals, and the perception that screening was necessary only when symptoms develop.

Negative views of cancer

Findings indicated that fear and fatalism were common views that impede participation in colorectal cancer screening. Fear occurred at different levels: (i) fear of cancer: ”nobody whispers about a stroke like they do [about] cancer… nobody wants to talk about it because…everybody is afraid of it [cancer]” (65); (ii) fear of a potential diagnosis as a result of screening: “The fear of knowing. That sounds crazy, but that's reality. It's the fear of not wanting to know that I have cancer” (86); and (iii) fear of suffering following the diagnosis: ”It is better to die than to live and suffer” and “Death is the easiest thing, it is the simplest thing, what comes before death is frightening” (87). Fatalism was another common barrier to screening participation: (31, 53) “I believe that… God decides everything… I do not believe in prevention. Death is already predetermined. It's just that I don't know when it will be” (53).

Negative attitudes towards colorectal cancer screening modalities

Many individuals held negative attitudes towards colorectal cancer screening modalities and avoided screening due to the undesirable nature of the tests. When asked why they do not undergo a FOBT, people indicated that “dealing with a dirty part of the body” (9), storing the kit for several days, and posting samples of fecal materials, were all threats to hygiene and represented social taboos. The main reasons for not participating in colonoscopy were the need for bowel preparation, the pain and discomfort associated with the procedure, and the risk of perforation (31). Screening in general was also avoided because of embarrassment due to the area of the body under investigation and having “zero dignity in the procedure” (42). Some people questioned the efficacy of colorectal cancer screening especially after witnessing rapidly growing cancers in friends and family (9, 18, 19, 31, 34, 41, 42, 49, 56, 72, 82, 88, 89): “[every] six months you go see your doctor and he said you got no cancer, next six month you see your doctor [now] he says you are going to die” (56).

Lack of motivation for screening

Several studies showed that individuals perceive colorectal cancer screening as less important in the context of other life obligations and priorities including other health concerns (13, 18, 35, 36, 43, 45, 46, 50, 55, 56, 59, 90, 91), and competing life demands (being a caregiver, work commitments; refs. 13, 17, 20, 39, 43, 45, 47, 48, 50, 54, 60, 82) “I think most people feel they don't have time…They are more concerned with family, their jobs, whatever” (54). People found booking a colonoscopy appointment that fit into their schedule a challenge (34, 50, 76, 85, 86, 92–94).

Cultural and gender barriers

Culture-specific barriers to colorectal cancer screening included beliefs that natural remedies could prevent cancer (43, 51, 55, 67, 69, 73), and that screening habits are not part of their culture (13, 63, 69, 72, 73, 84). Certain ethnic minorities including Indian, African-Caribbean, and Chinese-American people considered their ethnic diet sufficient to protect against colorectal cancer (31). Latino and African-American men reacted strongly to the idea of a colonoscopy. Because of the anatomical area, having a colonoscopy was perceived as a threat to masculinity (16, 31, 36, 40, 44, 45, 55, 64, 65, 79, 80, 95): “Probing around in my rectum… [is] treading on my masculinity” (31). Some women believed colorectal cancer was a male disease (31).

Socioeconomic barriers

The need to take time off from work to have a colonoscopy was a barrier. As providers for their family, many low SES individuals were concerned about losing income and preferred to sacrifice their health for the well-being of their families (17, 42, 63, 83, 84, 96). Transportation and finding someone to take them home after the procedure were challenges (36, 50, 55, 70, 77, 84, 85, 88, 92, 96, 97). In addition, poor health literacy among people with low SES (11, 16, 19, 31, 33, 42, 52, 58, 69, 70, 90, 98) made it difficult to understand medical terms such as “colon” or “rectum” or “percentage” (31). Furthermore, language barriers, particularly among non-English–speaking participants, made following physician instructions about sample collection challenging and prevented some from completing the test (9–11, 49, 72, 80, 85, 92, 98–100).

Modifying factors.

There were several modifying factors influencing facilitators and barriers (Table 2). Public education helped promote colorectal cancer screening by increasing awareness about colorectal cancer and colorectal cancer screening modalities, clarifying misperceptions around the need for screening when asymptomatic, and addressing unrealistic fear of cancer (83): “…when people are educated, then that takes away the fear because they have an understanding of things… and the more things are spoken to, people, I mean as long as it stays a mystery, then the fear factor is going to be real high.” Public education also made colorectal cancer a more socially acceptable topic: “Just as the mention of “breast cancer” or “prostate” once made people squeamish… so will publicity about colorectal cancer make it easier to say “rectum” and “colon”” (31). In fact, some studies indicated the lack of public education and awareness of colorectal cancer contributed to the deficiencies in knowledge about colorectal cancer screening (31): “I think most people…don't know too much about colorectal cancer…for females, they are more concerned about breast cancer,…men… prostate… but colorectal cancer is seldom mentioned… they're not put on the same level of awareness and concern” (59).

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup
Table 2.

Modifiers of facilitators and barriers associated with participation in colorectal cancer screening, with exemplary quotes

PCPs also influenced colorectal cancer screening participation both positively and negatively. PCPs who addressed the importance of asymptomatic screening helped individuals understand and value the purpose of screening (31), but many studies found PCPs did not frequently recommend colorectal cancer screening (17, 49, 50, 52, 58, 61, 62, 67, 68, 70, 76, 86, 96, 97, 101, 102): “I would have been more encouraged to do the screening if I have been talked to by my GP” (18). Studies that explored the way PCPs communicate colorectal cancer screening recommendations found patients who received inadequate information about the pain and discomfort associated with endoscopy did not participate in repeat screening (51, 80, 81) and those who received inadequate FOBT instruction did not complete the test (97, 103).

Results of the meta-method analysis

Guided by the CASP tool for quality assessment of qualitative studies, the mean quality score for 94 included studies was 8 out of 10 (range 3–10), 75 (80%) of which met at least 8 out 10 of the CASP criteria, 17 met 4 to 7 criteria, and 2 met less than 3 criteria (Supplementary Table S3). Our meta-method exploration helped our understanding of the credibility and trustworthiness of the evidence, and facilitated our interpretation of findings. For example, 65% of included studies meeting most (at least 8 of 10) CASP criteria identified awareness as a barrier or facilitator to colorectal cancer screening participation compared with 50% of studies meeting few (3 or less) CASP criteria.

As part of the meta-method analysis, we critically examined the research design, data collection process, and analytical methods used in the included studies; most showed coherence between the research question, methods, analytic strategy, and presentation of results. The majority of studies (92.5%) used appropriate qualitative research designs for their research questions; and 87.2% of studies appropriately addressed the sampling strategy and details of study participants, enhancing transferability of findings to similar populations. We also found that studies sufficiently described the data collection process (95.7%) and analysis (71.3%). Finally, most studies (94.7%) provided a clear statement of findings with verbatim quotes representing participant views, increasing the credibility of findings. However, only 35.1% of studies provided sufficient information on the effect of the researcher on data interpretation to enable an assessment of the extent to which findings were grounded in the data vs. biased by the researchers' interpretations.

Results of the meta-theory analysis

We examined included studies that used a theoretical model or framework to guide their investigation and assessed how this may have influenced the choice of data collection and interpretation. We found that 41 studies (44%) report using a theoretical model, primarily the Health Belief Model (32) (n = 15) or the PRECEDE-PROCEED model (ref. 94; n = 6; Table 1). The remaining 53 studies did not explicitly use a theoretical model to guide their investigation, but most (59%) indicated that their research questions and interview guide were informed by known determinants of colorectal cancer screening from the literature. Nine studies used grounded theory as an analytic method to generate themes (18, 36, 50, 54, 59, 74, 104–106).

Results of the meta-synthesis

We identified a number of barriers and facilitators influencing the decision to participate in colorectal cancer screening. We propose an interpretive framework capturing the main facilitators and barriers to colorectal cancer screening participation decisions and strategies that influence them. This conceptual framework is grounded in the primary studies included in this review and based on the triangulation of findings from the three steps in stage I. We found that awareness is a requisite concept for colorectal cancer screening decisions as it is integrated in overcoming other structural and motivational barriers related to screening (Fig. 2). We found that individuals with the most knowledge of colorectal cancer screening were supportive of screening while those with the least knowledge were less supportive and tended not to be screened. Lack of awareness is also partly responsible for negative views of cancer and the unrealistic fear and fatalistic views of colorectal cancer, while appropriate awareness led to positive views and attitudes, creating motivation for individuals to participate in screening, despite perceptions of undesirable nature of screening tests. Individuals who had previous experience with colorectal cancer screening tests or were appropriately informed about the benefits and risks of the test held positive attitudes towards colorectal cancer screening. In contrast, those who were poorly informed often held negative attitudes towards screening modalities. Cultural beliefs, socioeconomic status, health literacy, and language barriers were the major factors influencing the decision to participate in colorectal cancer screening among certain population groups with lower participation. Strategies that influenced these barriers and facilitators included public education, PCP efforts to educate and recommend screening, and influential friends and family.

Figure 2.
  • Download figure
  • Open in new tab
  • Download powerpoint
Figure 2.

A novel conceptual framework of factors influencing the decision to participate in colorectal cancer screening.

Discussion

Our systematic review found a large, high quality qualitative literature evaluating barriers and facilitators to colorectal cancer screening participation from the perspective of the potential participants. To our knowledge, this is the first systematic review of qualitative studies relevant to the general screening population, and findings should be of interest to PCPs, public health officials, colorectal cancer screening programs, and oncologists providing colorectal cancer care. Our research suggests that while there are some barriers and facilitators to colorectal cancer screening common across various settings, there are also specific barriers affecting colorectal cancer screening participation in ethnic minority and male groups. Importantly, our meta-study synthesis of 94 qualitative studies revealed that a requisite factor influencing the decision to participate in colorectal cancer screening is “awareness”, including awareness of colorectal cancer as a disease; the etiology and progression of colorectal cancer; colorectal cancer screening modalities and their risks and benefits; the need to screen in the asymptomatic state; and the role of screening in prevention of colorectal cancer incidence, morbidity, and mortality. Our analysis revealed awareness to be a requisite concept relating to participation in colorectal cancer screening as it was integral in overcoming other reported structural and motivational barriers to screening. Participants' lack of awareness of colorectal cancer was frequently reported among included studies (9–11, 13, 16–18, 20, 31, 34, 36–38, 40–44, 46–50, 53–56, 58, 59, 62, 63, 65, 68, 69, 71, 72, 74, 75, 77–80, 82–84, 86, 90, 97, 98, 100, 102, 107), and influenced their views of colorectal cancer as well as their attitude and motivation to participate in colorectal cancer screening—those who were poorly informed often held negative attitudes towards screening and were less likely to participate. Conversely, a sufficient level of awareness was a key enabler for individual decision-making (9–11, 13, 31, 34–40, 52, 57, 60, 67, 68, 75, 78, 80, 87, 106, 108). This is a concordant finding with a previous systematic review of 19 articles examining patient barriers to colonoscopy among African-Americans (109).

The requisite role of awareness has been identified in quantitative literature examining factors associated with colorectal cancer screening. In a recent study, evaluating decision-making in over 900 individuals invited to colorectal cancer screening as part of a randomized trial, while 81% of individuals who participated in screening had sufficient knowledge to make an informed choice about colorectal cancer screening, only 12% of those who did not participate had sufficient knowledge to make an informed decision (103). Similarly in a population-based survey of over 1,600 individuals in the United Kingdom, there was a strong relationship between knowledge and intention to undergo screening – those with greater knowledge about colorectal cancer had a positive attitude toward screening and expressed a stronger intent to undergo screening (110). This relationship was found to be modified by attitudes towards colorectal cancer (110); increased knowledge had a positive impact on attitudes which then resulted in a stronger intent for screening, a finding concordant with the results of our meta-synthesis. In U.S.-based studies, a relationship between education level and participation in colorectal cancer screening has been found consistently, even after controlling for other important determinants such as access to care and SES (111, 112). The relationship between educational level and participation is generally considered a proxy for health literacy and knowledge about colorectal cancer and screening, although the data supporting the relationship between health literacy and attitudes towards colorectal cancer screening is unclear in the literature (113).

Despite the requisite role of awareness, designing interventions to improve colorectal cancer screening participation by targeting awareness has proven challenging. The use of “small media” including educational booklets, videos, and advanced notification of invitation letters has been found to have an impact on colorectal cancer screening uptake (114, 115), although the effect is modest and not demonstrated in all studies (111). The influence of mass media campaigns on awareness and screening uptake is difficult to assess; although some research supports the role of mass media and community interventions in improving screening participation, the evidence is inconsistent (116–119). It is likely that although improving awareness is a precondition to enhancing colorectal cancer screening participation, addressing structural and motivational barriers may be essential to raising participation rates once awareness has been established (111, 115).

One of the objectives of this synthesis was to gain a more in-depth understanding of the cultural and social barriers contributing to inequities in colorectal cancer screening participation. The impact of cultural beliefs, socioeconomic factors, and gender perceptions on individuals' decision to participate in colorectal cancer screening was evident in many studies including ethnic minorities, low income individuals, and women and men from various backgrounds. Our research found certain barriers were prominent in specific ethnic groups such as fear of cancer (10, 31, 44), the perception of screening as futile (42, 47, 88), and misconceptions about the role of natural remedies and diet in colorectal cancer development (11, 53, 54, 59) and its cure (10, 31, 55, 72). Similarly, for those with lower SES, structural and motivational barriers such as screening scheduling challenges, as well as getting time off to participate in screening, and finding transportation for testing were key barriers; in a recent review of 8 qualitative studies evaluating the under-use of colonoscopy screening in African Americans, such barriers are termed “competing factors” (109). The authors of this review highlight that it is critical to target such competing factors and reduce the logistical barriers to screening (in addition to improving awareness and attitudes) to have a meaningful impact on screening participation, a conclusion supported by our findings.

The role of the PCP is vital to addressing “competing factors”. Consistent with the quantitative literature (6, 111, 120), we found that the PCP has a key role in addressing barriers and facilitators to screening participation. Our review provides further insights into the PCP practices that may have the most influence. For example, patients with low health literacy reported having difficulties understanding medical terms used during PCP recommendations, while others did not understand the content of the recommendation because of a language barrier or avoided encounters with PCPs unless there was an acute or chronic need. In many cases, PCPs did not recommend colorectal cancer screening to patients (65, 121), and when they did, the instructions provided were often insufficient (31, 47, 81). To enhance equitable colorectal cancer screening participation, PCPs should identify and address “competing factors” for their patients while providing customized culturally sensitive information that is appropriate for their level of education, language, and health literacy.

While 54% of included studies did not report using a theoretical model, 77% of included studies were guided by theory or known determinants of colorectal cancer screening from the literature. Qualitative scholars suggest that use of theory in qualitative research is not uniform and may be problematic. In a meta-synthesis of qualitative studies, Sandelowski and Barroso (2002; ref. 122) found that researchers tend to fit collected data to theory, hence limiting the exploratory aspect of qualitative research. Furthermore, much like in quantitative studies, many researchers often do not clearly articulate their theoretical framework yet they state that they based their research questions, sampling, interview guide, and interpretation on important concepts delineated in the literature. In our meta-study, most of the studies not using a theoretical model were informed by known determinants of colorectal cancer screening from the literature. The current review is advantageous for including studies informed by theory and also those more exploratory in nature.

Our systematic meta-study review has major strengths. First, the meta-study method was very useful for exploring factors that determine the decision to participate in colorectal cancer screening. Meta-study involves an interpretive constructivist approach whereby the deconstruction of the three meta-study processes (meta-data, meta-method, meta-theory) through “meta-synthesis” can provide comprehensive understandings. Indeed, our understanding of data from 94 qualitative studies allowed us to create a conceptual framework capturing several factors influencing colorectal cancer screening participation, which will help inform the development of future interventions and research to promote effective colorectal cancer screening practices. Second, our process for conducting the meta-study review was rigorous and systematic involving a multidisciplinary team who helped design and conduct the review. Our search did not impose any limitations on language, publication date, ethnic group perspective, and qualitative methods; and two reviewers independently selected articles for inclusion, abstracted data, assessed study quality, and synthesized and discussed data, increasing the credibility of findings. Third, the studies included a broad range of participants in terms of geographic region, ethnicity and SES, and we considered participation in all screening modalities (e.g., FOBT, colonoscopy), which all enhances the transferability of our findings to different populations and settings.

Our meta-study review has some limitations. First, we completed an exhaustive search of the literature, but there is still a risk that we may have missed some studies, a potential limitation of all systematic reviews (30). However, we had an information science expert who developed and executed our search strategy to help mitigate this concern. Second, our interpretations may have been influenced by personal views of colorectal cancer and colorectal cancer screening participation. To minimize this potential bias, we attempted to stay truthful to the included studies, and continuously engaged in team discussions to interpret findings. Third, qualitative studies may be considered contextually bound and non-generalizable. However, as demonstrated by our study, synthesizing the qualitative literature can provide a wealth of information and identify findings consistent between studies and across populations and is thus supported by many researchers (123). While we summarized qualitative studies evaluating the perspective of the potential participant in screening, additional insights would be gained by examining qualitative research from the perspective of the provider and system.

Conclusion

A lack of awareness about colorectal cancer as a disease, its progression and the role of screening in mitigating the impact of the disease influences people's views of colorectal cancer and their attitude and motivation to participate in colorectal cancer screening. While educational interventions need to address awareness, pairing such education interventions with those targeting logistic, cultural and motivational barriers is most likely to result in equitable participation in colorectal cancer screening. Our meta-study review provides a conceptual framework to guide the development of future interventions and research aiming to improve participation rates, enhance informed decision-making and reduce inequities in participation in colorectal cancer screening.

Disclosure of Potential Conflicts of Interest

No potential conflicts of interest were disclosed.

Grant Support

This research was supported through Cancer Care Ontario and Canadian Cancer Society Research Institute (700803) research awards.

The costs of publication of this article were defrayed in part by the payment of page charges. This article must therefore be hereby marked advertisement in accordance with 18 U.S.C. Section 1734 solely to indicate this fact.

Acknowledgments

The authors thank Selina Tang for her assistance with the manuscript.

Footnotes

  • Note: Supplementary data for this article are available at Cancer Epidemiology, Biomarkers & Prevention Online (http://cebp.aacrjournals.org/).

  • PROSPERO registration: This review is registered in PROSPERO (registration number: CRD42013005025 available at www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO).

  • Received September 17, 2015.
  • Revision received March 17, 2016.
  • Accepted March 31, 2016.
  • ©2016 American Association for Cancer Research.

References

  1. 1.↵
    1. Ferlay J,
    2. Shin HR,
    3. Bray F,
    4. Forman D,
    5. Mathers C,
    6. Parkin DM
    . Estimates of worldwide burden of cancer in 2008: GLOBOCAN 2008. Int J Cancer 2010;127:2893–917.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  2. 2.↵
    American Cancer Society. Cancer facts & figures 2014. Atlanta, GA: American Cancer Society; 2014.
  3. 3.↵
    Canadian Cancer Society's Advisory Committee on Cancer Statistics. Canadian Cancer Statistics 2014. Toronto, ON: Canadian Cancer Society; 2014.
  4. 4.↵
    Cancer Research United Kingdom. Cancer Incidence for Common Cancers; 2016. Available from: http://www.cancerresearchuk.org/cancer-info/cancerstats/incidence/commoncancers/#Twenty.
  5. 5.↵
    Cancer Research United Kingdom. Cancer Mortality in the UK in 2010. 2010, Available from: http://publications.cancerresearchuk.org/downloads/Product/CS_CS_MORTALITY.pdf.
  6. 6.↵
    1. Beydoun HA,
    2. Beydoun MA
    . Predictors of colorectal cancer screening behaviors among average-risk older adults in the United States. Cancer Causes Control 2008;19:339–59.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  7. 7.↵
    1. Jepson R,
    2. Clegg A,
    3. Forbes C,
    4. Lewis R,
    5. Sowden A,
    6. Kleijnen J
    . The determinants of screening uptake and interventions for increasing uptake: a systematic review. Health Technol Assess 2000;4:1–133.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  8. 8.↵
    1. Weller DP,
    2. Campbell C
    . Uptake in cancer screening programmes: a priority in cancer control. Br J Cancer 2009;101Suppl 2:S55–9.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  9. 9.↵
    1. Javanparast S,
    2. Ward PR,
    3. Carter SM,
    4. Wilson CJ
    . Barriers to and facilitators of colorectal cancer screening in different population subgroups in Adelaide, South Australia. Med J Aust 2012;196:521–3.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  10. 10.↵
    1. Severino G,
    2. Wilson C,
    3. Turnbull D,
    4. Duncan A,
    5. Gregory T
    . Attitudes towards and beliefs about colorectal cancer and screening using the faecal occult blood test within the Italian-Australian community. Asian Pac J Cancer Prev 2009;10:387–94.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  11. 11.↵
    1. Choe JH,
    2. Tu SP,
    3. Lim JM,
    4. Burke NJ,
    5. Acorda E,
    6. Taylor VM
    . "Heat in their intestine": colorectal cancer prevention beliefs among older Chinese Americans. Ethn Dis 2006;16:248–54.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  12. 12.↵
    1. Von Wagner C,
    2. Knight K,
    3. Halligan S,
    4. Atkin W,
    5. Lilford R,
    6. Morton D,
    7. et al.
    Patient experiences of colonoscopy, barium enema and CT colonography: a qualitative study. Br J Radiol 2009;82:13–9.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  13. 13.↵
    1. Molina-Barcelo A,
    2. Salas Trejo D,
    3. Peiro-Perez R,
    4. Malaga Lopez A
    . To participate or not? Giving voice to gender and socio-economic differences in colorectal cancer screening programmes. Eur J Cancer Care 2011;20:669–78.
    OpenUrl
  14. 14.↵
    1. Honein-AbouHaidar GN,
    2. Baxter NN,
    3. Moineddin R,
    4. Urbach DR,
    5. Rabeneck L,
    6. Bierman AS
    . Trends and inequities in colorectal cancer screening participation in Ontario, Canada, 2005–2011. Cancer Epidemiol 2013;37:946–56.
    OpenUrl
  15. 15.↵
    1. Christy SM,
    2. Mosher CE,
    3. Rawl SM
    . Integrating men's health and masculinity theories to explain colorectal cancer screening behavior. Am J Mens Health 2014;8:54–65.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  16. 16.↵
    1. Getrich CM,
    2. Sussman AL,
    3. Helitzer DL,
    4. Hoffman RM,
    5. Warner TD,
    6. Sanchez V,
    7. et al.
    Expressions of machismo in colorectal cancer screening among New Mexico Hispanic subpopulations. Qual Health Res 2012;22:546–59.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  17. 17.↵
    1. Beyer KM,
    2. Comstock S,
    3. Seagren R,
    4. Rushton G
    . Explaining place-based colorectal cancer health disparities: evidence from a rural context. Soc Sci Med 2011;72:373–82.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  18. 18.↵
    1. Aubin-Auger I,
    2. Mercier A,
    3. Lebeau JP,
    4. Baumann L,
    5. Peremans L,
    6. Van Royen P
    . Obstacles to colorectal screening in general practice: a qualitative study of GPs and patients. Fam Pract 2011;28:670–6.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  19. 19.↵
    1. Bass SB,
    2. Gordon TF,
    3. Ruzek SB,
    4. Wolak C,
    5. Ward S,
    6. Paranjape A,
    7. et al.
    Perceptions of colorectal cancer screening in urban African American clinic patients: differences by gender and screening status. J Cancer Educ 2011;26:121–8.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  20. 20.↵
    1. Brouse CH,
    2. Basch CE,
    3. Wolf RL,
    4. Shmukler C
    . Barriers to colorectal cancer screening: an educational diagnosis. J Cancer Educ 2004;19:170–3.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  21. 21.↵
    1. Honein-Abouhaidar GN,
    2. Kastner M,
    3. Vuong V,
    4. Perrier L,
    5. Rabeneck L,
    6. Tinmouth J,
    7. et al.
    Benefits and barriers to participation in colorectal cancer screening: a protocol for a systematic review and synthesis of qualitative studies. BMJ Open 2014;4:e004508.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  22. 22.↵
    1. Tong A,
    2. Flemming K,
    3. McInnes E,
    4. Oliver S,
    5. Craig J
    . Enhancing transparency in reporting the synthesis of qualitative research: ENTREQ. BMC Med Res Methodol 2012;12:181.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  23. 23.↵
    1. Wong SS,
    2. Wilczynski NL,
    3. Haynes RB
    . Developing optimal search strategies for detecting clinically relevant qualitative studies in MEDLINE. Stud Health Technol Inform 2004;107:311–6.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  24. 24.↵
    1. Walters LA,
    2. Wilczynski NL,
    3. Haynes RB
    . Developing optimal search strategies for retrieving clinically relevant qualitative studies in EMBASE. Qual Health Res 2006;16:162–8.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  25. 25.↵
    1. McKibbon KA,
    2. Wilczynski NL,
    3. Haynes RB
    . Developing optimal search strategies for retrieving qualitative studies in PsycINFO. Eval Health Prof 2006;29:440–54.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  26. 26.↵
    1. Wilczynski NL,
    2. Marks S,
    3. Haynes RB
    . Search strategies for identifying qualitative studies in CINAHL. Qual Health Res 2007;17:705–10.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  27. 27.↵
    1. Liberati A,
    2. Altman DG,
    3. Tetzlaff J,
    4. Mulrow C,
    5. Gotzsche PC,
    6. Ioannidis JP,
    7. et al.
    The PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate healthcare interventions: explanation and elaboration. BMJ 2009;339:b2700.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  28. 28.↵
    Critical Appraisal Skills Program (CASP) checklist for assessing qualitative studies; 2013. Available from: http://media.wix.com/ugd/dded87_37491d0241aa448a8f3d4ae17c869472.pdf.
  29. 29.↵
    1. Brennan E,
    2. Home-Thompson A,
    3. Clark I
    . Strategies to support the success of culturally and linguistically diverse (CALD) health students during clinical placements: a systematic review. Focus on Health Professional Education 2013;15:78–93.
    OpenUrl
  30. 30.↵
    1. Paterson B,
    2. Canam C
    . Meta-study of qualitative health research: a practical guide to meta-analysis and meta-synthesis. London, UK: SAGE Publications; 2001.
  31. 31.↵
    1. Beeker C,
    2. Kraft JM,
    3. Southwell BG,
    4. Jorgensen CM
    . Colorectal cancer screening in older men and women: qualitative research findings and implications for intervention. J Community Health 2000;25:263–78.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  32. 32.↵
    1. Janz NK,
    2. Becker MH
    . The Health Belief Model: a decade later. Health Educ Q 1984;11:1–47.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  33. 33.↵
    1. Holt WS Jr.
    . Factors affecting compliance with screening sigmoidoscopy. J Fam Pract 1991;32:585–9.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  34. 34.↵
    1. Holmes-Rovner M,
    2. Williams GA,
    3. Hoppough S,
    4. Quillan L,
    5. Butler R,
    6. Given CW
    . Colorectal cancer screening barriers in persons with low income. Cancer Pract 2002;10:240–7.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  35. 35.↵
    1. O'Sullivan I,
    2. Orbell S
    . Self-sampling in screening to reduce mortality from colorectal cancer: a qualitative exploration of the decision to complete a faecal occult blood test (FOBT). J Med Screen 2004;11:16–22.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  36. 36.↵
    1. Palmer RC,
    2. Midgette LA,
    3. Dankwa I
    . Colorectal cancer screening and African Americans: findings from a qualitative study. Cancer Control 2008;15:72–9.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  37. 37.↵
    1. Ruffin MTt,
    2. Creswell JW,
    3. Jimbo M,
    4. Fetters MD
    . Factors influencing choices for colorectal cancer screening among previously unscreened African and Caucasian Americans: findings from a triangulation mixed methods investigation. J Community Health 2009;34:79–89.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  38. 38.↵
    1. Shokar NK,
    2. Vernon SW,
    3. Weller SC
    . Cancer and colorectal cancer: knowledge, beliefs, and screening preferences of a diverse patient population. Fam Med 2005;37:341–7.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  39. 39.↵
    1. Wackerbarth SB,
    2. Peters JC,
    3. Haist SA
    . "Do we really need all that equipment?": factors influencing colorectal cancer screening decisions. Qual Health Res 2005;15:539–54.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  40. 40.↵
    1. Winterich JA,
    2. Quandt SA,
    3. Grzywacz JG,
    4. Clark P,
    5. Dignan M,
    6. Stewart JH,
    7. et al.
    Men's knowledge and beliefs about colorectal cancer and 3 screenings: education, race, and screening status. Am J Health Behav 2011;35:525–34.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  41. 41.↵
    1. Goel V,
    2. Gray R,
    3. Chart P,
    4. Fitch M,
    5. Saibil F,
    6. Zdanowicz Y
    . Perspectives on colorectal cancer screening: a focus group study. Health Expect 2004;7:51–60.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  42. 42.↵
    1. Greisinger A,
    2. Hawley ST,
    3. Bettencourt JL,
    4. Perz CA,
    5. Vernon SW
    . Primary care patients' understanding of colorectal cancer screening. Cancer Detect Prev 2006;30:67–74.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  43. 43.↵
    1. Garcia M,
    2. Borras JM,
    3. Mila N,
    4. Espinas JA,
    5. Binefa G,
    6. Fernandez E,
    7. et al.
    Factors associated with initial participation in a population-based screening for colorectal cancer in Catalonia, Spain: a mixed-methods study. Prev Med 2011;52:265–7.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  44. 44.↵
    1. Goldman RE,
    2. Diaz JA,
    3. Kim I
    . Perspectives of colorectal cancer risk and screening among Dominicans and Puerto Ricans: stigma and misperceptions. Qual Health Res 2009;19:1559–68.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  45. 45.↵
    1. Jones RM,
    2. Devers KJ,
    3. Kuzel AJ,
    4. Woolf SH
    . Patient-reported barriers to colorectal cancer screening: a mixed-methods analysis. Am J Prev Med 2010;38:508–16.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  46. 46.↵
    1. O'Malley AS,
    2. Beaton E,
    3. Yabroff KR,
    4. Abramson R,
    5. Mandelblatt J
    . Patient and provider barriers to colorectal cancer screening in the primary care safety-net. Prev Med 2004;39:56–63.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  47. 47.↵
    1. Sly JR,
    2. Edwards T,
    3. Shelton RC,
    4. Jandorf L
    . Identifying barriers to colonoscopy screening for nonadherent African American participants in a patient navigation intervention. Health Educ Behav 2013;40:449–57.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  48. 48.↵
    1. Varela A,
    2. Jandorf L,
    3. Duhamel K
    . Understanding factors related to Colorectal Cancer (CRC) screening among urban Hispanics: use of focus group methodology. J Cancer Educ 2010;25:70–5.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  49. 49.↵
    1. Coronado GD,
    2. Farias A,
    3. Thompson B,
    4. Godina R,
    5. Oderkirk W
    . Attitudes and beliefs about colorectal cancer among Mexican Americans in communities along the US-Mexico border. Ethn Dis 2006;16:421–7.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  50. 50.↵
    1. Denberg TD,
    2. Melhado TV,
    3. Coombes JM,
    4. Beaty BL,
    5. Berman K,
    6. Byers TE,
    7. et al.
    Predictors of nonadherence to screening colonoscopy. J Gen Intern Med 2005;20:989–95.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  51. 51.↵
    1. Diaz JA,
    2. Goldman R,
    3. Arellano N,
    4. Borkan J,
    5. Eaton CB
    . Brief report: exploration of colorectal cancer risk perceptions among Latinos. J Immigr Minor Health 2011;13:188–92.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  52. 52.↵
    1. Oster C,
    2. Zajac I,
    3. Flight I,
    4. Hart E,
    5. Young GP,
    6. Wilson C,
    7. et al.
    Ambivalence and its influence on participation in screening for colorectal cancer. Qual Health Res 2013;23:1188–201.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  53. 53.↵
    1. Lee SY,
    2. Lee EE
    . Korean Americans' beliefs about colorectal cancer screening. Asian Nurs Res (Korean Soc Nurs Sci) 2013;7:45–52.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  54. 54.↵
    1. Oscar CS
    . Psychosocial influences on the colorectal cancer screening beliefs and practices of African-American women: a qualitative study. New York, NY: The City University of New York; 2009.
  55. 55.↵
    1. Jilcott Pitts SB,
    2. Lea CS,
    3. May CL,
    4. Stowe C,
    5. Hamill DJ,
    6. Walker KT,
    7. et al.
    "Fault-line of an earthquake": a qualitative examination of barriers and facilitators to colorectal cancer screening in rural, Eastern North Carolina. J Rural Health 2013;29:78–87.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  56. 56.↵
    1. Clavarino AM,
    2. Janda M,
    3. Hughes KL,
    4. Del Mar C,
    5. Tong S,
    6. Stanton WR,
    7. et al.
    The view from two sides: a qualitative study of community and medical perspectives on screening for colorectal cancer using FOBT. Prev Med 2004;39:482–90.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  57. 57.↵
    1. Oster C,
    2. McGuiness C,
    3. Duncan A,
    4. Turnbull D
    . Masculinity and men's participation in colorectal cancer screening. Psychology of Men & Masculinity 20142014.
  58. 58.↵
    1. Ekberg M,
    2. Callender M,
    3. Hamer H,
    4. Rogers S
    . Exploring the decision to participate in the National Health Service Bowel Cancer Screening Programme. Eur J Cancer Prev 2014;23:391–7.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  59. 59.↵
    1. Bong G,
    2. McCool J
    . Chinese peoples' perceptions of colorectal cancer screening: a New Zealand perspective. N Z Med J 2011;124:29–38.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  60. 60.↵
    1. Chapple A,
    2. Ziebland S,
    3. Hewitson P,
    4. McPherson A
    . What affects the uptake of screening for bowel cancer using a faecal occult blood test (FOBt): a qualitative study. Soc Sci Med 2008;66:2425–35.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  61. 61.↵
    1. Lobchuk MM,
    2. Bapuji SB,
    3. McClement SE,
    4. Sisler JJ,
    5. Katz A,
    6. Martens P,
    7. et al.
    What is the role of family in promoting faecal occult blood test screening? Exploring physician, average-risk individual, and family perceptions. Cancer Epidemiol 2012;36:e190–9.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  62. 62.↵
    1. Manne S,
    2. Etz RS,
    3. Hudson SV,
    4. Medina-Forrester A,
    5. Boscarino JA,
    6. Bowen DJ,
    7. et al.
    A qualitative analysis of couples' communication regarding colorectal cancer screening using the Interdependence Model. Patient Educ Couns 2012;87:18–22.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  63. 63.↵
    1. Goodman MJ,
    2. Ogdie A,
    3. Kanamori MJ,
    4. Canar J,
    5. O'Malley AS
    . Barriers and facilitators of colorectal cancer screening among Mid-Atlantic Latinos: focus group findings. Ethn Dis 2006;16:255–61.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  64. 64.↵
    1. Thompson L,
    2. Reeder T,
    3. Abel G
    . I can't get my husband to go and have a colonoscopy: gender and screening for colorectal cancer. Health (London) 2012;16:235–49.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  65. 65.↵
    1. Holt CL,
    2. Shipp M,
    3. Eloubeidi M,
    4. Clay KS,
    5. Smith-Janas MA,
    6. Janas MJ,
    7. et al.
    Use of focus group data to develop recommendations for demographically segmented colorectal cancer educational strategies. Health Educ Res 2009;24:876–89.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  66. 66.↵
    1. Greiner KA,
    2. Geana MV,
    3. Epp A,
    4. Watson A,
    5. Filippi M,
    6. Daley CM,
    7. et al.
    A computerized intervention to promote colorectal cancer screening for underserved populations: theoretical background and algorithm development. Technol Health Care 2012;20:25–35.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  67. 67.↵
    1. James AS,
    2. Filippi MK,
    3. Pacheco CM,
    4. Cully L,
    5. Perdue D,
    6. Choi WS,
    7. et al.
    Barriers to colorectal cancer screening among American Indian men aged 50 or older, Kansas and Missouri, 2006–2008. Prev Chronic Dis 2013;10:130067.
    OpenUrl
  68. 68.↵
    1. Gwede CK,
    2. Jean-Francois E,
    3. Quinn GP,
    4. Wilson S,
    5. Tarver WL,
    6. Thomas KB,
    7. et al.
    Perceptions of colorectal cancer among three ethnic subgroups of US blacks: a qualitative study. J Natl Med Assoc 2011;103:669–80.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  69. 69.↵
    1. Francois F,
    2. Elysee G,
    3. Shah S,
    4. Gany F
    . Colon cancer knowledge and attitudes in an immigrant Haitian community. J Immigr Minor Health 2009;11:319–25.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  70. 70.↵
    1. Green AR,
    2. Peters-Lewis A,
    3. Percac-Lima S,
    4. Betancourt JR,
    5. Richter JM,
    6. Janairo MP,
    7. et al.
    Barriers to screening colonoscopy for low-income Latino and white patients in an urban community health center. J Gen Intern Med 2008;23:834–40.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  71. 71.↵
    1. Hoffman-Goetz L,
    2. Thomson MD,
    3. Donelle L
    . Reasons for declining colorectal cancer screening by older Canadians: a pilot study. J Cancer Educ 2008;23:32–6.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  72. 72.↵
    1. O'Malley AS,
    2. Renteria-Weitzman R,
    3. Huerta EE,
    4. Mandelblatt J
    . Patient and provider priorities for cancer prevention and control: a qualitative study in Mid-Atlantic Latinos. Ethn Dis 2002;12:383–91.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  73. 73.↵
    1. Robb KA,
    2. Solarin I,
    3. Power E,
    4. Atkin W,
    5. Wardle J
    . Attitudes to colorectal cancer screening among ethnic minority groups in the UK. BMC Public Health 2008;8:34.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  74. 74.↵
    1. Palmer CK,
    2. Thomas MC,
    3. von Wagner C,
    4. Raine R
    . Reasons for non-uptake and subsequent participation in the NHS Bowel Cancer Screening Programme: a qualitative study. Br J Cancer 2014;110:1705–11.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  75. 75.↵
    1. Ogedegbe G,
    2. Cassells AN,
    3. Robinson CM,
    4. DuHamel K,
    5. Tobin JN,
    6. Sox CH,
    7. et al.
    Perceptions of barriers and facilitators of cancer early detection among low-income minority women in community health centers. J Natl Med Assoc 2005;97:162–70.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  76. 76.↵
    1. Wackerbarth SB,
    2. Peters JC,
    3. Haist SA
    . Modeling the decision to undergo colorectal cancer screening: insights on patient preventive decision making. Med Care 2008;46:S17–22.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  77. 77.↵
    1. McCaffery K,
    2. Borril J,
    3. Williamson S,
    4. Taylor T,
    5. Sutton S,
    6. Atkin W,
    7. et al.
    Declining the offer of flexible sigmoidoscopy screening for bowel cancer: a qualitative investigation of the decision-making process. Soc Sci Med 2001;53:679–91.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  78. 78.↵
    1. Ramos M,
    2. Taltavull M,
    3. Pineiro P,
    4. Nieto R,
    5. Llagostera M
    . [Attitudes of primary health care users to a colorectal cancer screening program]. Gac Sanit 2013;27:516–20.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  79. 79.↵
    1. Wong CR,
    2. Bloomfield ER,
    3. Crookes DM,
    4. Jandorf L
    . Barriers and facilitators to adherence to screening colonoscopy among African-Americans: a mixed-methods analysis. J Cancer Educ 2013;28:722–8.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  80. 80.↵
    1. Austin KL,
    2. Power E,
    3. Solarin I,
    4. Atkin WS,
    5. Wardle J,
    6. Robb KA
    . Perceived barriers to flexible sigmoidoscopy screening for colorectal cancer among UK ethnic minority groups: a qualitative study. J Med Screen 2009;16:174–9.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  81. 81.↵
    1. Dube CE,
    2. Fuller BK,
    3. Rosen RK,
    4. Fagan M,
    5. O'Donnell J
    . Men's experiences of physical exams and cancer screening tests: a qualitative study. Prev Med 2005;40:628–35.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  82. 82.↵
    1. Foo AS,
    2. Thia JJ,
    3. Ng ZP,
    4. Fong NP,
    5. Koh GC
    . Colorectal cancer screening: the effectiveness of education on its barriers and acceptability. Asia Pac J Public Health 2012;24:595–609.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  83. 83.↵
    1. Greiner KA,
    2. Born W,
    3. Nollen N,
    4. Ahluwalia JS
    . Knowledge and perceptions of colorectal cancer screening among urban African Americans. J Gen Intern Med 2005;20:977–83.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  84. 84.↵
    1. Hou SI
    . Factors associated with intentions for colorectal cancer screenings in a Chinese sample. Psychol Rep 2005;96:159–62.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  85. 85.↵
    1. Garcia-Dominic O,
    2. Lengerich EJ,
    3. Wray LA,
    4. Parrott R,
    5. Aumiller B,
    6. Kluhsman B,
    7. et al.
    Barriers to CRC screening among Latino adults in Pennsylvania: ACCN results. Am J Health Behav 2012;36:153–67.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  86. 86.↵
    1. Tarasenko YN,
    2. Wackerbarth SB,
    3. Love MM,
    4. Joyce JM,
    5. Haist SA
    . Colorectal cancer screening: patients' and physicians' perspectives on decision-making factors. J Cancer Educ 2011;26:285–93.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  87. 87.↵
    1. Baron-Epel O,
    2. Klin A
    . Cancer as perceived by a middle-aged Jewish urban population in Israel. Oncol Nurs Forum 2009;36:E326–34.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  88. 88.↵
    1. Frew EJ,
    2. Wolstenholme JL,
    3. Whynes DK
    . Eliciting relative preferences for two methods of colorectal cancer screening. Eur J Cancer Care 2005;14:124–31.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  89. 89.↵
    1. Hou SI
    . Experience of colorectal cancer screening using a home-administered kit for fecal occult blood tests among a Chinese worksite population in Taiwan. Psychol Rep 2005;96:178–80.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  90. 90.↵
    1. Weitzman ER,
    2. Zapka J,
    3. Estabrook B,
    4. Goins KV
    . Risk and reluctance: understanding impediments to colorectal cancer screening. Prev Med 2001;32:502–13.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  91. 91.↵
    1. Tarasenko YN,
    2. Schoenberg NE
    . Colorectal cancer screening among rural Appalachian residents with multiple morbidities. Rural Remote Health 2011;11:1553.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  92. 92.↵
    1. Fernandez ME,
    2. Wippold R,
    3. Torres-Vigil I,
    4. Byrd T,
    5. Freeberg D,
    6. Bains Y,
    7. et al.
    Colorectal cancer screening among Latinos from U.S. cities along the Texas-Mexico border. Cancer Causes Control 2008;19:195–206.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  93. 93.↵
    1. McQueen A,
    2. Bartholomew LK,
    3. Greisinger AJ,
    4. Medina GG,
    5. Hawley ST,
    6. Haidet P,
    7. et al.
    Behind closed doors: physician-patient discussions about colorectal cancer screening. J Gen Intern Med 2009;24:1228–35.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  94. 94.↵
    1. Green LW,
    2. Kreuter M
    . Health program planning: An educational and ecological approach. 4th ed. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill; 2005.
  95. 95.↵
    1. Winterich JA,
    2. Quandt SA,
    3. Grzywacz JG,
    4. Clark PE,
    5. Miller DP,
    6. Acuna J,
    7. et al.
    Masculinity and the body: how African American and White men experience cancer screening exams involving the rectum. Am J Mens Health 2009;3:300–9.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  96. 96.↵
    1. Good K,
    2. Niziolek J,
    3. Yoshida C,
    4. Rowlands A
    . Insights into barriers that prevent African Americans from seeking colorectal screenings: a qualitative study. Gastroenterol Nurs 2010;33:204–8.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  97. 97.↵
    1. Lasser KE,
    2. Kelly B,
    3. Maier J,
    4. Murillo J,
    5. Hoover S,
    6. Isenberg K,
    7. et al.
    Discussions about preventive services: a qualitative study. BMC Fam Pract 2008;9:49.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  98. 98.↵
    1. Lasser KE,
    2. Ayanian JZ,
    3. Fletcher RH,
    4. Good MJ
    . Barriers to colorectal cancer screening in community health centers: a qualitative study. BMC Fam Pract 2008;9:15.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  99. 99.↵
    1. Ward PR,
    2. Javanparast S,
    3. Wilson C
    . Equity of colorectal cancer screening: which groups have inequitable participation and what can we do about it? Aust J Prim Health 2011;17:334–46.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  100. 100.↵
    1. Brouse CH,
    2. Basch CE,
    3. Wolf RL,
    4. Shmukler C,
    5. Neugut AI,
    6. Shea S
    . Barriers to colorectal cancer screening with fecal occult blood testing in a predominantly minority urban population: a qualitative study. Am J Public Health 2003;93:1268–71.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  101. 101.↵
    1. Fyffe DC,
    2. Hudson SV,
    3. Fagan JK,
    4. Brown DR
    . Knowledge and barriers related to prostate and colorectal cancer prevention in underserved black men. J Natl Med Assoc 2008;100:1161–7.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  102. 102.↵
    1. Reeder AI
    . "It's a small price to pay for life": faecal occult blood test (FOBT) screening for colorectal cancer, perceived barriers and facilitators. N Z Med J 2011;124:11–7.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  103. 103.↵
    1. van Dam L,
    2. Korfage IJ,
    3. Kuipers EJ,
    4. Hol L,
    5. van Roon AH,
    6. Reijerink JC,
    7. et al.
    What influences the decision to participate in colorectal cancer screening with faecal occult blood testing and sigmoidoscopy? Eur J Cancer 2013;49:2321–30.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  104. 104.↵
    1. Bapuji SB,
    2. Lobchuk MM,
    3. McClement SE,
    4. Sisler JJ,
    5. Katz A,
    6. Martens P
    . Fecal occult blood testing instructions and impact on patient adherence. Cancer Epidemiol 2012;36:e258–64.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  105. 105.↵
    1. Friedemann-Sanchez G,
    2. Griffin JM,
    3. Partin MR
    . Gender differences in colorectal cancer screening barriers and information needs. Health Expect 2007;10:148–60.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  106. 106.↵
    1. James AS,
    2. Daley CM,
    3. Greiner KA
    . Knowledge and attitudes about colon cancer screening among African Americans. Am J Health Behav 2011;35:393–401.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  107. 107.↵
    1. Royak-Schaler R,
    2. Blocker DE,
    3. Yali AM,
    4. Bynoe M,
    5. Briant KJ,
    6. Smith S
    . Breast and colorectal cancer risk communication approaches with low-income African-American and Hispanic women: implications for healthcare providers. J Natl Med Assoc 2004;96:598–608.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  108. 108.↵
    1. Ge G,
    2. Burke N,
    3. Somkin CP,
    4. Pasick R
    . Considering culture in physician– patient communication during colorectal cancer screening. Qual Health Res 2009;19:778–89.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  109. 109.↵
    1. Bromley EG,
    2. May FP,
    3. Federer L,
    4. Spiegel BM,
    5. van Oijen MG
    . Explaining persistent under-use of colonoscopic cancer screening in African Americans: a systematic review. Prev Med 2015;71:40–8.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  110. 110.↵
    1. McCaffery K,
    2. Wardle J,
    3. Waller J
    . Knowledge, attitudes, and behavioral intentions in relation to the early detection of colorectal cancer in the United Kingdom. Prev Med 2003;36:525–35.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  111. 111.↵
    1. Holden DJ,
    2. Jonas DE,
    3. Porterfield DS,
    4. Reuland D,
    5. Harris R
    . Systematic review: enhancing the use and quality of colorectal cancer screening. Ann Intern Med 2010;152:668–76.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  112. 112.↵
    1. Steinwachs D,
    2. Allen JD,
    3. Barlow WE,
    4. Duncan RP,
    5. Egede LE,
    6. Friedman LS,
    7. et al.
    NIH state-of-the-science conference statement: Enhancing use and quality of colorectal cancer screening. NIH Consens State Sci Statements 2010;27:1–31.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  113. 113.↵
    1. van der Heide I,
    2. Uiters E,
    3. Jantine Schuit A,
    4. Rademakers J,
    5. Fransen M
    . Health literacy and informed decision making regarding colorectal cancer screening: a systematic review. Eur J Public Health 2015;25:575–82.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  114. 114.↵
    1. Brouwers MC,
    2. De Vito C,
    3. Bahirathan L,
    4. Carol A,
    5. Carroll JC,
    6. Cotterchio M,
    7. et al.
    What implementation interventions increase cancer screening rates? a systematic review. Implement Sci 2011;6:111.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  115. 115.↵
    1. Senore C,
    2. Inadomi J,
    3. Segnan N,
    4. Bellisario C,
    5. Hassan C
    . Optimising colorectal cancer screening acceptance: a review. Gut 2015;64:1158–77.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  116. 116.↵
    1. Escoffery C,
    2. Rodgers KC,
    3. Kegler MC,
    4. Haardorfer R,
    5. Howard DH,
    6. Liang S,
    7. et al.
    A systematic review of special events to promote breast, cervical and colorectal cancer screening in the United States. BMC Public Health 2014;14:274.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  117. 117.↵
    1. Whyte S,
    2. Harnan S
    . Effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of an awareness campaign for colorectal cancer: a mathematical modeling study. Cancer Causes Control 2014;25:647–58.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  118. 118.↵
    1. Lo SH,
    2. Vart G,
    3. Snowball J,
    4. Halloran SP,
    5. Wardle J,
    6. von Wagner C
    . The impact of media coverage of the Flexible Sigmoidoscopy Trial on English colorectal screening uptake. J Med Screen 2012;19:83–8.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  119. 119.↵
    1. MacKenzie R,
    2. Chapman S,
    3. McGeechan K,
    4. Holding S
    . ‘A disease many people still feel uncomfortable talking about': Australian television coverage of colorectal cancer. Psychooncology 2010;19:283–8.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  120. 120.↵
    1. Wang J,
    2. Moehring J,
    3. Stuhr S,
    4. Krug M
    . Barriers to colorectal cancer screening in Hispanics in the United States: an integrative review. Appl Nurs Res 2013;26:218–24.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  121. 121.↵
    1. Feeley TH,
    2. Cooper J,
    3. Foels T,
    4. Mahoney MC
    . Efficacy expectations for colorectal cancer screening in primary care: identifying barriers and facilitators for patients and clinicians. Health Commun 2009;24:304–15.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  122. 122.↵
    1. Sandelowski M,
    2. Barroso J
    . Finding the findings in qualitative studies. J Nurs Scholarsh 2002;34:213–9.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  123. 123.↵
    1. Finlayson KW,
    2. Dixon A
    . Qualitative meta-synthesis: a guide for the novice. Nurse Res 2008;15:59–71.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  124. 124.
    1. Taylor T,
    2. Williamson S,
    3. Wardle J,
    4. Borrill J,
    5. Sutton S,
    6. Atkin W
    . Acceptability of flexible sigmoidoscopy screening in older adults in the United Kingdom. J Med Screen 2000;7:38–45.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  125. 125.
    1. Palmer RC,
    2. Midgette LA,
    3. Mullan ID
    . Colorectal cancer screening preferences among African Americans: which screening test is preferred? J Cancer Educ 2010;25:577–81.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  126. 126.
    1. Woodrow C,
    2. Watson E,
    3. Rozmovits L,
    4. Parker R,
    5. Austoker J
    . Public perceptions of communicating information about bowel cancer screening. Health Expect 2008;11:16–25.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  127. 127.
    1. Ritvo P,
    2. Myers RE,
    3. Paszat L,
    4. Serenity M,
    5. Perez DF,
    6. Rabeneck L
    . Gender differences in attitudes impeding colorectal cancer screening. BMC Public Health 2013;13:500.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  128. 128.
    1. Shaw SJ,
    2. Vivian J,
    3. Orzech KM,
    4. Torres CH,
    5. Armin J
    . Consistency in attitudes across cancer screenings in medically underserved minority populations. J Cancer Educ 2012;27:165–71.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  129. 129.
    1. Hatcher J,
    2. Dignan MB,
    3. Schoenberg N
    . How do rural health care providers and patients view barriers to colorectal cancer screening? Insights from appalachian kentucky. Nurs Clin North Am 2011;46:181–92.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  130. 130.
    1. Goldsmith G,
    2. Chiaro C
    . Colorectal cancer screening: how to help patients comply. J Fam Pract 2008;57:E2–7.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  131. 131.
    1. Katz ML,
    2. James AS,
    3. Pignone MP,
    4. Hudson MA,
    5. Jackson E,
    6. Oates V,
    7. et al.
    Colorectal cancer screening among African American church members: a qualitative and quantitative study of patient-provider communication. BMC Public Health 2004;4:62.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
View Abstract
PreviousNext
Back to top
Cancer Epidemiology Biomarkers & Prevention: 25 (6)
June 2016
Volume 25, Issue 6
  • Table of Contents
  • Table of Contents (PDF)

Sign up for alerts

View this article with LENS

Open full page PDF
Article Alerts
Sign In to Email Alerts with your Email Address
Email Article

Thank you for sharing this Cancer Epidemiology, Biomarkers & Prevention article.

NOTE: We request your email address only to inform the recipient that it was you who recommended this article, and that it is not junk mail. We do not retain these email addresses.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
Systematic Review and Meta-study Synthesis of Qualitative Studies Evaluating Facilitators and Barriers to Participation in Colorectal Cancer Screening
(Your Name) has forwarded a page to you from Cancer Epidemiology, Biomarkers & Prevention
(Your Name) thought you would be interested in this article in Cancer Epidemiology, Biomarkers & Prevention.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Citation Tools
Systematic Review and Meta-study Synthesis of Qualitative Studies Evaluating Facilitators and Barriers to Participation in Colorectal Cancer Screening
Gladys N. Honein-AbouHaidar, Monika Kastner, Vincent Vuong, Laure Perrier, Corinne Daly, Linda Rabeneck, Sharon Straus and Nancy N. Baxter
Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev June 1 2016 (25) (6) 907-917; DOI: 10.1158/1055-9965.EPI-15-0990

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
Share
Systematic Review and Meta-study Synthesis of Qualitative Studies Evaluating Facilitators and Barriers to Participation in Colorectal Cancer Screening
Gladys N. Honein-AbouHaidar, Monika Kastner, Vincent Vuong, Laure Perrier, Corinne Daly, Linda Rabeneck, Sharon Straus and Nancy N. Baxter
Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev June 1 2016 (25) (6) 907-917; DOI: 10.1158/1055-9965.EPI-15-0990
del.icio.us logo Digg logo Reddit logo Twitter logo CiteULike logo Facebook logo Google logo Mendeley logo
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like
  • Google Plus One

Jump to section

  • Article
    • Abstract
    • Introduction
    • Materials and Methods
    • Results
    • Discussion
    • Conclusion
    • Disclosure of Potential Conflicts of Interest
    • Grant Support
    • Acknowledgments
    • Footnotes
    • References
  • Figures & Data
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF
Advertisement

Related Articles

Cited By...

More in this TOC Section

  • Environmental Exposures and Non-Hodgkin Lymphoma
  • The Human Microbiome and Cancer Risk
  • U.S. Cervical Cancer Screening Preferences Systematic Review
Show more Reviews
  • Home
  • Alerts
  • Feedback
  • Privacy Policy
Facebook   Twitter   LinkedIn   YouTube   RSS

Articles

  • Online First
  • Current Issue
  • Past Issues

Info for

  • Authors
  • Subscribers
  • Advertisers
  • Librarians

About Cancer Epidemiology, Biomarkers & Prevention

  • About the Journal
  • Editorial Board
  • Permissions
  • Submit a Manuscript
AACR logo

Copyright © 2021 by the American Association for Cancer Research.

Cancer Epidemiology, Biomarkers & Prevention
eISSN: 1538-7755
ISSN: 1055-9965

Advertisement