Journal of Cancer Education

, Volume 27, Issue 4, pp 695–702 | Cite as

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

A Qualitative Study
  • Sara RoweEmail author
  • Geoffrey Goldsmith
  • Robert Price
  • Audrey Brooks
  • Amanda Harvey


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.


Colorectal cancer Cancer screening Cancer prevention Family medical clinic intervention Focus groups 


  1. 1.
    Colorectal cancer overview. American Cancer Society (c2012) [updated 2012 January]. Available from: RectumCancer/OverviewGuide/colorectal-cancer-overview-key-statistics
  2. 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 60:42–46Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Brenes GA, Paskett ED (2000) Predictors of stage of adoption for colorectal cancer screening. Prev Med 31:410–416PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 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 165:661–666PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 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 304:687–691PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Dietrich AJ, Woodruff CB, Carney PA (1994) Changing office routines to enhance preventive care; the preventive GAPS approach. Arch Fam Med 3:176–183PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 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 35:67–74CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 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 147–171Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Goldsmith G, Chiaro C (2008) Colorectal cancer screening: how to help patients comply. J Fam Pract 57:2–7Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Screening for colorectal cancer (c2008) Maryland: US Preventive Services Task Force [updated 2009 March]. Available from: http://www.uspreventiveservices
  11. 11.
    Krueger RA (1994) Focus groups: a practical guide for applied research, 2nd edn. Sage, Thousand OaksGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Wengraf T (2001) Qualitative research interviewing: biographic narratives and semi-structured methods. Sage, London, EnglandGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Lawson L, Rowe S (2010) Treatment of females convicted of molesting children. J Forensic Nurs 6:180–187PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Robinson-Wolf Z (2007) Ethnography: the method. In: Munahll P (ed) Nursing research: a qualitative perspective, 4th edn. Jones and Barlett, Sudbury, pp 293–319Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Streubert H, Carpenter D (1999) Qualitative research in nursing: advancing the humanistic imperative, 2nd edn. Lippincott, PhiladelphiaGoogle Scholar
  16. 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 154:384–390PubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Berwick DM (2002) A user’s manual for the IOM’s Quality Chasm report. Heal Aff 21:80–90CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Collins J (2006) Good to great: why some companies make the leap… and others don’t. Harper Collins, New YorkGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • Sara Rowe
    • 1
    Email author
  • Geoffrey Goldsmith
    • 2
  • Robert Price
    • 2
  • Audrey Brooks
    • 3
  • Amanda Harvey
    • 4
  1. 1.College of NursingUniversity of Arkansas for Medical SciencesLittle RockUSA
  2. 2.College of MedicineUniversity of Arkansas for Medical SciencesLittle RockUSA
  3. 3.Department of PsychologyUniversity of ArizonaTucsonUSA
  4. 4.University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences, AHEC-North CentralMountain HomeUSA

Personalised recommendations