ColonCancerCheck Primary Care Invitation Pilot project: family physician perceptions.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To determine family physician perspectives regarding the acceptability and effectiveness of 2 interventions-a targeted, mailed invitation for screening to patients, and family physician audit-feedback reports-and on the colorectal cancer (CRC) screening program generally. This information will be used to guide program strategies for increasing screening uptake. DESIGN: Qualitative study. SETTING: Ontario. PARTICIPANTS: Family physicians (n = 65). METHODS: Seven 1-hour focus groups were conducted with family physicians using teleconferencing and Web-based technologies. Responses were elicited regarding family physicians' perspectives on the mailing of invitations to patients, the content and design of the audit-feedback reports, the effect of participation in the pilot project on daily practice, and overall CRC screening program function. MAIN FINDINGS: Key themes included strong support for both interventions and for the CRC screening program generally. Moderate support was found for direct mailing of fecal occult blood testing (FOBT) kits. Participants identified potential pitfalls if interventions were implemented outside of patient enrolment model practices. Participants expressed relatively strong support for colonoscopy as a CRC screening test but relatively weak support for FOBT. CONCLUSION: Although the proposed interventions to increase the uptake of CRC screening were highly endorsed, concerns about their applicability to non-patient enrolment model practices and the current lack of physician support for FOBT will need to be addressed to optimize intervention and program effectiveness. Our study is highly relevant to other public health programs planning organized 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 | 0.010 | 0.016 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 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".