Perspectives on colorectal cancer screening: a focus group study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To assess attitudes and acceptability of Ontario consumers and doctors towards colorectal screening with faecal occult blood testing (FOBT) and colonoscopy. DESIGN, SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: Focus groups with gender-specific samples of the population, high-risk gastroenterology patients and family doctors. METHOD: Semi-structured interview guides used by facilitator to lead groups through knowledge of risk factors and prevention of colorectal cancer, the screening modalities, requirements for implementing screening programmes, barriers to screening and preferences towards screening. MAIN FINDINGS: There were low levels of knowledge about colorectal cancer and its prevention in the general population. FOBT was an acceptable screening modality, but considerable education about its use and benefits would be necessary to implement a screening programme. Colonoscopy was not perceived to be a good choice for a primary screen in the general population. The high-risk group supported use of FOBT in the general population and emphasized the need for education. The doctors were more reluctant about screening, requesting clear guidelines. They also identified the time and resources that would be required if a screening programme were initiated. CONCLUSION: While colorectal screening is acceptable in this sample, information and decision aids are required to enable consumers and providers to make effective decisions. Implementation of colorectal screening programmes requires substantial educational efforts for both consumers and doctors.
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 | 0.006 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".