Robyn N Jordan, Celia Marion, Tonya Rosebrough, Sheryl Gabram-Mendola, Alison P Klein, Zachariah H Foda
{"title":"Perceptions of and Barriers to Colorectal Cancer Screening Uptake in Underserved Baltimore and Eastern Shore Populations.","authors":"Robyn N Jordan, Celia Marion, Tonya Rosebrough, Sheryl Gabram-Mendola, Alison P Klein, Zachariah H Foda","doi":"10.1007/s13187-026-02925-x","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Colorectal cancer (CRC) remains a leading cause of preventable cancer mortality, with persistent screening disparities in underserved communities. This qualitative study aimed to identify community-specific barriers to CRC screening among two distinct Maryland populations to inform the development of tailored educational materials. We conducted four in-person focus groups with 24 adults, consisting of residents from Baltimore City (BC) and the rural Maryland Eastern Shore (ES). Semi-structured guides explored CRC screening knowledge, perceived barriers, trusted information sources, and preferences for educational content. Discussions were audio-recorded, transcribed, and analyzed by two researchers using thematic analysis. There were significant differences between screening barriers in both populations. In the BC population, key barriers included lack of CRC symptom knowledge, stigma surrounding colorectal procedures, lack of recommendation for screening, and use of medical jargon during appointments. Participants emphasized the importance of plain language, visual aids, and community-specific references to increase CRC screening. In the ES population, key barriers included disengagement with healthcare, not pursuing medical care outside of emergencies, and significant logistical challenges. Participants emphasized the importance of incentives to encourage involvement with the healthcare system as well as using community health workers to help decrease logistic barriers to CRC screening. Within the state of Maryland, there are significantly different CRC screening barriers among BC and ES populations. This study elucidates the value of community-engaged approaches in developing CRC screening educational materials. These findings provide a foundation for future interventions and health education in similar underserved settings.</p>","PeriodicalId":50246,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Cancer Education","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.6000,"publicationDate":"2026-09-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Cancer Education","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s13187-026-02925-x","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"EDUCATION, SCIENTIFIC DISCIPLINES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Colorectal cancer (CRC) remains a leading cause of preventable cancer mortality, with persistent screening disparities in underserved communities. This qualitative study aimed to identify community-specific barriers to CRC screening among two distinct Maryland populations to inform the development of tailored educational materials. We conducted four in-person focus groups with 24 adults, consisting of residents from Baltimore City (BC) and the rural Maryland Eastern Shore (ES). Semi-structured guides explored CRC screening knowledge, perceived barriers, trusted information sources, and preferences for educational content. Discussions were audio-recorded, transcribed, and analyzed by two researchers using thematic analysis. There were significant differences between screening barriers in both populations. In the BC population, key barriers included lack of CRC symptom knowledge, stigma surrounding colorectal procedures, lack of recommendation for screening, and use of medical jargon during appointments. Participants emphasized the importance of plain language, visual aids, and community-specific references to increase CRC screening. In the ES population, key barriers included disengagement with healthcare, not pursuing medical care outside of emergencies, and significant logistical challenges. Participants emphasized the importance of incentives to encourage involvement with the healthcare system as well as using community health workers to help decrease logistic barriers to CRC screening. Within the state of Maryland, there are significantly different CRC screening barriers among BC and ES populations. This study elucidates the value of community-engaged approaches in developing CRC screening educational materials. These findings provide a foundation for future interventions and health education in similar underserved settings.
期刊介绍:
The Journal of Cancer Education, the official journal of the American Association for Cancer Education (AACE) and the European Association for Cancer Education (EACE), is an international, quarterly journal dedicated to the publication of original contributions dealing with the varied aspects of cancer education for physicians, dentists, nurses, students, social workers and other allied health professionals, patients, the general public, and anyone interested in effective education about cancer related issues.
Articles featured include reports of original results of educational research, as well as discussions of current problems and techniques in cancer education. Manuscripts are welcome on such subjects as educational methods, instruments, and program evaluation. Suitable topics include teaching of basic science aspects of cancer; the assessment of attitudes toward cancer patient management; the teaching of diagnostic skills relevant to cancer; the evaluation of undergraduate, postgraduate, or continuing education programs; and articles about all aspects of cancer education from prevention to palliative care.
We encourage contributions to a special column called Reflections; these articles should relate to the human aspects of dealing with cancer, cancer patients, and their families and finding meaning and support in these efforts.
Letters to the Editor (600 words or less) dealing with published articles or matters of current interest are also invited.
Also featured are commentary; book and media reviews; and announcements of educational programs, fellowships, and grants.
Articles should be limited to no more than ten double-spaced typed pages, and there should be no more than three tables or figures and 25 references. We also encourage brief reports of five typewritten pages or less, with no more than one figure or table and 15 references.