MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4408414816 · doi:10.1002/cam4.70662

Developing and Implementing a Colorectal Cancer Screening Program in Uganda: Stakeholder Perceived Barriers and Opportunities

2025· article· en· W4408414816 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Nicholas Matovu, Helen G. Coleman, Gerald Mutungi, Michael Donnelly, Lynne Lohfeld, Brian T. Johnston, Maurice B. Loughrey, Noleb M. Mugisha, Charlene M. McShane

Bibliographic record

VenueCancer Medicine · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicColorectal Cancer Screening and Detection
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersQueen's UniversityQueen's University BelfastBritish Society for Geomorphology
KeywordsMedicineStakeholderCancer preventionWorkforceGovernment (linguistics)Cancer screeningFamily medicineEnvironmental healthCancerPolitical sciencePublic relations

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

INTRODUCTION: Colorectal cancer (CRC) incidence is increasing in Uganda. Despite this, and the disproportionately high burden of early onset and late-stage CRC cases, no CRC screening program exists in Uganda. To guide and inform future CRC prevention efforts, interviews with key stakeholders were undertaken to better understand the perceived barriers and opportunities relevant to the development and implementation of a CRC screening program in Uganda. METHODS: Semi-structured key informant interviews were conducted with key stakeholders in cancer prevention, screening and policy/programming (n = 11, 6 medically qualified and 5 non-medical), who were recruited across Uganda using maximum variation sampling between March and April 2022. Interviews were audio recorded, transcribed, coded and later analysed using a deductive thematic analysis approach guided by the social ecological model. RESULTS: Major barriers included lack of government priority for CRC prevention programs, lack of resources/funding for CRC screening (policy level), inadequate screening facilities and equipment, limited training/knowledge of CRC and capacity of the health workforce (health system level), challenges in the delivery of CRC awareness messages (community level), emotions associated with CRC screening and poor awareness of CRC and its symptoms (individual level). Major opportunities included the existence of a draft national cancer control plan (policy level), existence of less costly CRC screening alternatives, less costly primary prevention measures (health system level), existence of community leadership and structures (community level), likely acceptability of the faecal occult blood test and peer support (individual level). CONCLUSION: There are substantive barriers to CRC screening program development and implementation in Uganda. However, there are signs, like the development of a cancer control plan, that suggest a shift towards strategic planning and allocation of resources at a population level for addressing the issues of cancer prevention and care, including CRC. In the meantime, efforts should prioritise primary prevention interventions such as mass education to promote CRC awareness.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.013
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.022
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.013
Threshold uncertainty score0.066

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0130.022
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0050.002
Scholarly communication0.0030.002
Open science0.0010.006
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.100
GPT teacher head0.364
Teacher spread0.263 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designQualitative
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations1
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCancer MedicineSame topicColorectal Cancer Screening and DetectionFrench-language works237,207