Skip to main content

Advertisement

Log in

Health Care Providers’ Perspectives of an Intervention Designed to Improve Colorectal Cancer Screening Rates in Family Medicine Residency Clinics

A Qualitative Study

  • Published:
Journal of Cancer Education Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The purpose of this study was to obtain feedback from family medicine residents and clinic nurses regarding a colorectal cancer screening (CRCS) intervention. Focus groups were used to ask participants three questions about their perceptions of the intervention and subsequent patient screening behaviors. Content analysis and constant comparison were used to yield two meaningful themes from the participant responses: patient-specific issues and study design issues. Patient-specific issues included: lack of education and fear, finances and insurance coverage, and compliance. Study design issues included: lack of time, a need for reminders to discuss CRCS with patients, quality of the nurse’s role, and a need for better clinical staff education and awareness. Results show ways to significantly improve future implementation of the CRCS intervention. Ultimately, future use of clinic-based CRCS interventions could be vastly improved by utilizing strategies to promote teamwork and increase the sense of mutual ownership among clinic staff.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Colorectal cancer overview. American Cancer Society (c2012) [updated 2012 January]. Available from: http://www.cancer.org/Cancer/Colonand RectumCancer/OverviewGuide/colorectal-cancer-overview-key-statistics

  2. US Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS), Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (2011) CDC Health Disparities and Inequalities Report—United States 2011. Morb Mortal Wkly Rep 60:42–46

    Google Scholar 

  3. Brenes GA, Paskett ED (2000) Predictors of stage of adoption for colorectal cancer screening. Prev Med 31:410–416

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Wei EK, Ryan CT, Dietrich AJ, Colditz GA (2005) Improving colorectal cancer screening by targeting office systems in primary care practices. Arch Intern Med 165:661–666

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Dietrich AJ, O’Connor GT, Keller A, Carney PA, Levy D, Whaley FS (1992) Cancer: improving early and prevention; a community practice randomized trial. BMJ 304:687–691

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Dietrich AJ, Woodruff CB, Carney PA (1994) Changing office routines to enhance preventive care; the preventive GAPS approach. Arch Fam Med 3:176–183

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Sabatino SA, Habarta N, Baron RC, Coates RJ, Rimer BK, Kerner J, Souglin SS, Kalra GP, Chattopadhyay S (2008) Intervention to increase recommendations and delivery of screening for breast, cervical, and colorectal cancers by healthcare provider: systematic reviews of provider assessment and feedback and provider incentives. Am J Prev Med 35:67–74

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Prochaska JO, DiClemente CC (2005) The transtheorectical approach. In: Norcass JC, Goldfrid MR (eds) Handbook of psychotherapy integration, 2nd edn. Oxford University Press, New York, pp 147–171

    Google Scholar 

  9. Goldsmith G, Chiaro C (2008) Colorectal cancer screening: how to help patients comply. J Fam Pract 57:2–7

    Google Scholar 

  10. Screening for colorectal cancer (c2008) Maryland: US Preventive Services Task Force [updated 2009 March]. Available from: http://www.uspreventiveservices taskforce.org/uspstf/uspscolo.htm

  11. Krueger RA (1994) Focus groups: a practical guide for applied research, 2nd edn. Sage, Thousand Oaks

    Google Scholar 

  12. Wengraf T (2001) Qualitative research interviewing: biographic narratives and semi-structured methods. Sage, London, England

    Google Scholar 

  13. Lawson L, Rowe S (2010) Treatment of females convicted of molesting children. J Forensic Nurs 6:180–187

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Robinson-Wolf Z (2007) Ethnography: the method. In: Munahll P (ed) Nursing research: a qualitative perspective, 4th edn. Jones and Barlett, Sudbury, pp 293–319

    Google Scholar 

  15. Streubert H, Carpenter D (1999) Qualitative research in nursing: advancing the humanistic imperative, 2nd edn. Lippincott, Philadelphia

    Google Scholar 

  16. Curry LA, Spatz E, Cherlin E, Thompson JW, Berg D, Ting HH, Decker C, Krumholz HM, Bradley EH (2011) What distinguishes top-performing hospitals in acute myocardial infarction mortality rates? Ann Intern Med 154:384–390

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Berwick DM (2002) A user’s manual for the IOM’s Quality Chasm report. Heal Aff 21:80–90

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Collins J (2006) Good to great: why some companies make the leap… and others don’t. Harper Collins, New York

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Sara Rowe.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Rowe, S., Goldsmith, G., Price, R. et al. Health Care Providers’ Perspectives of an Intervention Designed to Improve Colorectal Cancer Screening Rates in Family Medicine Residency Clinics. J Canc Educ 27, 695–702 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1007/s13187-012-0393-5

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s13187-012-0393-5

Keywords

Navigation