Physician Barriers to Population-Based, Fecal Occult Blood Test-Based Colorectal Cancer Screening Programs for Average-Risk Patients
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Colorectal cancer (CRC) screening is an efficacious but underused means to reduce the burden of CRC. Population-based CRC screening programs are currently being implemented in Canada and physicians are key partners in increasing screening uptake. The current study identified physician attitudes and barriers that need to be addressed by provincial programs. METHODS: A mailed survey of primary care physicians in Alberta. RESULTS: The survey response rate was 42.4% (806 of 1903). The majority of physicians suggested CRC screening as part of a routine periodic examination; however, the approach to test selection and the type of tests recommended varied by geographical region. The majority of physicians agreed (48%) or strongly agreed (36%) that a provincewide screening program is the best approach to reducing mortality from CRC. However, there were many serious concerns identified - the most common was endoscopic capacity for follow-up of patients with a positive fecal occult blood test (FOBT), which was cited by 55% to 69% of the physicians surveyed. The barriers to three commonly available tests (FOBT, flexible sigmoidoscopy and colonoscopy) varied according to health region, and the types of barriers identified varied according to the specific test. INTERPRETATION: Screening for CRC is gradually being accepted among primary care physicians in Alberta. A key finding of the present descriptive study was the regional variation in practices, perceived barriers and concerns about provincial population-based screening programs based on FOBT as the primary screening test. Provincial programs will need to address the issue of endoscopic capacity and perceived barriers to FOBT to gain primary care physician acceptance of FOBT-based CRC screening programs.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".