↓ Skip to main content

Knowledge, Experiences, and Barriers to Colorectal Cancer Screening: A Survey of Health Care Providers Working in Primary Care Settings

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of Cancer Education, June 2014
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 tweeter

Citations

dimensions_citation
12 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
41 Mendeley
Title
Knowledge, Experiences, and Barriers to Colorectal Cancer Screening: A Survey of Health Care Providers Working in Primary Care Settings
Published in
Journal of Cancer Education, June 2014
DOI 10.1007/s13187-014-0676-0
Pubmed ID
Authors

Suha Omran, Husam Barakat, Joshua Kanaabi Muliira, Nabeela Aljadaa

Abstract

Colorectal cancer (CRC) screening and early detection can effectively decrease the morbidity and mortality associated with this disease. Health care providers (HCPs) working in primary care settings as the first contact with the health care system can play a pivotal role in cancer prevention and screening for early detection. The purpose of this study was to explore the knowledge, experiences, and perceived barriers to CRC screening among HCPs working in primary care settings. A cross-sectional design and a self-administered questionnaire (SAQ) was used to collect data from 236 HCPs working in health centers in Jordan. The 236 HCPs were nurses (45.8 %), physicians (45.3 %), and others (7.2 %). A third of the HCPs (30 %) knew the recommended age to begin CRC screening for patients with average risk. Overall physicians scored higher than nurses on questions assessing CRC screening knowledge. The majority of HCPs were not knowledgeable about CRC screening recommendations but believed that CRC is preventable (75.8 %). The main perceived barriers to CRC screening were patient's fear of finding out that they have cancer and lack of awareness about CRC screening tests, shortage of trained HCPs to conduct invasive screening procedures, and lack of policy/protocol on CRC screening. HCPs working in primary care settings in Jordan do not have adequate knowledge about CRC screening. There is a need for tailored continuing educational programs and other interventions to improve HCPs' knowledge, as this can increase CRC screening in primary care settings and compliance with current screening guidelines.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 tweeter who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 41 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 1 2%
Unknown 40 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Unspecified 9 22%
Student > Master 7 17%
Researcher 6 15%
Professor > Associate Professor 5 12%
Student > Ph. D. Student 4 10%
Other 10 24%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 17 41%
Unspecified 7 17%
Nursing and Health Professions 7 17%
Social Sciences 3 7%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 2 5%
Other 5 12%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 04 June 2014.
All research outputs
#10,404,542
of 13,047,855 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Cancer Education
#392
of 575 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#126,695
of 188,914 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Cancer Education
#13
of 18 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 13,047,855 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 575 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.0. This one is in the 14th percentile – i.e., 14% 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 188,914 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 18 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 5th percentile – i.e., 5% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.