Examining intrafamilial communication of colorectal cancer risk status to family members and kin responses to colonoscopy: a qualitative study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background First-degree relatives (FDRs) of probands with colorectal cancer (CRC) may be at increased risk of CRC and require colonoscopy. Proband disclosure about this risk and need for colonoscopy is essential for FDRs to take appropriate action. Low colonoscopy rates are reported among FDRs and little is known about the proband disclosure process. A better understanding of the barriers surrounding colonoscopy and disclosure is needed. Methods CRC probands (n = 16) and FDRs (n = 9), recruited from a Canadian CRC Consortium, completed interviews to determine barriers to disclosure and colonoscopy, respectively. Interviews were analyzed using thematic analysis and participants’ motivation to disclose to FDRs or undertake colonoscopy was categorized into Stages of Change (i.e., Precontemplation, Contemplation, Preparation, Action, or Maintenance) using the transtheoretical model. Results 25% of probands had not disclosed to any first-degree kin and were categorized in the Precontemplation or Contemplation Stage of Change. Barriers to disclosure included lack of information, negative expectations about familial reaction, assuming FDRs were aware of risk or already being screened, dysfunctional family dynamics, and cultural barriers. 75% of FDRs were categorized in the Precontemplation or Contemplation Stage of Change. Barriers included negative perceptions about colonoscopy, health-care provider related factors, practical concerns, and lack of information about CRC, risk, and colonoscopy. Conclusions In the absence of barriers such as cost and accessibility, this Canadian sample still reported several challenges to disclosure and colonoscopy adherence. Future research should explore interventions such as motivational interviewing to improve proband disclosure and to increase FDR adherence to colonoscopy.
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 | 0.015 | 0.028 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.009 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".