ObjectiveTo describe a conceptual framework that provides understanding of the challenges encountered and the adaptive approaches taken by organised colorectal cancer (CRC) screening programmes during the initial phase of the COVID-19 pandemic.DesignThis was a qualitative case study of international CRC screening programmes. Semi-structured interviews were conducted with programme managers/leaders and programme experts, researchers and clinical leaders of large, population-based screening programmes. Data analysis, using elements of grounded theory, as well as cross-cases analysis was conducted by two experienced qualitative researchers.Results19 participants were interviewed from seven programmes in North America, Europe and Australasia. A conceptual framework (‘Nimble Approach’) was the key outcome of the analysis. Four concepts constitute this approach to managing CRC screening programmes during COVID-19: Fast (meeting the need to make decisions and communicate quickly), Adapting (flexibly and creatively managing testing/colonoscopy capacity, access and backlogs), Calculating (modelling and actively monitoring programmes to inform decision-making and support programme quality) and Ethically Mindful (considering ethical conundrums emerging from programme responses). Highly integrated programmes, those with highly integrated communication networks, and that managed greater portions of the screening process seemed best positioned to respond to the crisis.ConclusionsThe Nimble Approach has potentially broad applications; it can be deployed to effectively respond to programme-specific challenges or manage CRC programmes during future pandemics, other health crises or emergencies.

Background and aimsNon-pharmacological interventions to improve patient-reported outcomes of colonoscopy may be effective at mitigating negative experiences and perceptions of the procedure, but research to characterise the extent and features of studies of these interventions is limited.MethodsWe conducted a scoping review searching multiple databases for peer-reviewed publications of randomised controlled trials conducted in adults investigating a non-pharmacological intervention to improve patient-reported outcomes of colonoscopy. Study characteristics were tabulated and summarised narratively and graphically.ResultsWe screened 5939 citations and 962 full texts, and included 245 publications from 39 countries published between 1992 and 2022. Of these, 80.8% were full publications and 19.2% were abstracts. Of the 41.9% of studies reporting funding sources, 11.4% were unfunded. The most common interventions were carbon dioxide and/or water insufflation methods (33.9%), complementary and alternative medicines (eg, acupuncture) (20.0%), and colonoscope technology (eg, magnetic scope guide) (21.6%). Pain was as an outcome across 82.0% of studies. Studies most often used a patient-reported outcome examining patient experience during the procedure (60.0%), but 42.9% of studies included an outcome without specifying the time that the patient experienced the outcome. Most intraprocedural patient-reported outcomes were measured retrospectively rather than contemporaneously, although studies varied in terms of when outcomes were assessed.ConclusionResearch on non-pharmacological interventions to improve patient-reported outcomes of colonoscopy is unevenly distributed across types of intervention and features high variation in study design and reporting, in particular around outcomes. Future research efforts into non-pharmacological interventions to improve patient-reported outcomes of colonoscopy should be directed at underinvestigated interventions and developing consensus-based guidelines for study design, with particular attention to how and when outcomes are experienced and measured.PROSPERO registration number42020173906.