BackgroundPharmacies could play a key role in distributing fecal immunochemical test (FIT) kits for colorectal cancer (CRC) screening. We assessed pharmacists’ preferences for implementing a pharmacy-based FIT program (PharmFITTM).MethodsFrom 9/2022 to 1/2023, we conducted a national online survey of 578 pharmacists (response rate 59%). Descriptive statistics characterized preferred PharmFITTM design features, and logistic regression identified correlates associated with perceived difficulty identifying FIT-eligible patients.ResultsMost pharmacists preferred physicians to inform patients about CRC screening eligibility and to communicate positive FIT results, including referral for colonoscopy. Pharmacists favored in-person FIT distribution, provision of written information, and brief counseling at the pharmacy, and supported patients mailing completed FITs directly to laboratories. Staff pharmacists and those in independent, regional chain, or supermarket pharmacies were more likely to perceive it to be difficult to identify FIT-eligible patients. Lower perceived PharmFITTM complexity, more years of experience, and advanced credentials were associated with less perceived difficulty.ConclusionsPharmacists support PharmFITTM and endorse clear physician– pharmacy role delineation, in-person FIT distribution, and direct mailing of completed FITs to laboratories. Pharmacy structure and pharmacists’ experience and training should inform PharmFITTM design and implementation strategies.
Building similarity graph...
Analyzing shared references across papers
Loading...
Parth D. Shah
Cape Town HVTN Immunology Laboratory / Hutchinson Centre Research Institute of South Africa
Olufeyisayo O. Odebunmi
University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill
Austin R. Waters
University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill
SHILAP Revista de lepidopterología
Preventive Oncology & Epidemiology
University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill
Fred Hutch Cancer Center
UNC Lineberger Comprehensive Cancer Center
Building similarity graph...
Analyzing shared references across papers
Loading...
Shah et al. (Wed,) studied this question.
synapsesocial.com/papers/69b79da78166e15b153aadea — DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/28322134.2026.2636343
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: