↓ Skip to main content

Barriers of and Facilitators to Physician Recommendation of Colorectal Cancer Screening

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of General Internal Medicine, October 2007
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

policy
1 policy source

Citations

dimensions_citation
128 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
106 Mendeley
Title
Barriers of and Facilitators to Physician Recommendation of Colorectal Cancer Screening
Published in
Journal of General Internal Medicine, October 2007
DOI 10.1007/s11606-007-0396-9
Pubmed ID
Authors

Carmen E. Guerra, J. Sanford Schwartz, Katrina Armstrong, Jamin S. Brown, Chanita Hughes Halbert, Judy A. Shea

Abstract

Colorectal cancer screening (CRCS) has been demonstrated to be effective and is consistently recommended by clinical practice guidelines. However, only slightly over half of all Americans have ever been screened. Patients cite physician recommendation as the most important motivator of screening. This study explored the barriers of and facilitators to physician recommendation of CRCS. A 3-component qualitative study to explore the barriers of and facilitators to physician recommendation of CRCS: in-depth, semistructured interviews with 29 purposively sampled, community- and academic-based primary care physicians; chart-stimulated recall, a technique that utilizes patient charts to probe physician recall and provide context about the barriers of and facilitators to physician recommendation of CRCS during actual clinic encounters; and focus groups with 18 academic primary care physicians. Grounded theory techniques of analysis were used. All the participating physicians were aware of and recommended CRCS. The overwhelmingly preferred test was colonoscopy. Barriers of physician recommendation of CRCS included patient comorbidities, prior patient refusal of screening, physician forgetfulness, acute care visits, lack of time, and lack of reminder systems and test tracking systems. Facilitators to physician recommendation of CRCS included patient request, patient age 50-59, physician positive attitudes about CRCS, physician prioritization of screening, visits devoted to preventive health, reminders, and incentives. There are multiple physician, patient, and system barriers to recommending CRCS. Thus, interventions may need to target barriers at multiple levels to successfully increase physician recommendation of CRCS.

Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 106 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 1 <1%
United States 1 <1%
Grenada 1 <1%
Uruguay 1 <1%
Unknown 102 96%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 19 18%
Researcher 14 13%
Student > Ph. D. Student 13 12%
Other 10 9%
Student > Doctoral Student 9 8%
Other 21 20%
Unknown 20 19%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 47 44%
Social Sciences 10 9%
Nursing and Health Professions 8 8%
Psychology 6 6%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 3 3%
Other 4 4%
Unknown 28 26%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 15 June 2012.
All research outputs
#7,943,894
of 23,911,072 outputs
Outputs from Journal of General Internal Medicine
#4,251
of 7,806 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#26,435
of 74,328 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of General Internal Medicine
#35
of 59 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,911,072 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 44th percentile – i.e., 44% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 7,806 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 21.8. This one is in the 37th percentile – i.e., 37% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 74,328 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 17th percentile – i.e., 17% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 59 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 13th percentile – i.e., 13% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.