literature review of logistics management

Information

• Author Services

Initiatives

You are accessing a machine-readable page. In order to be human-readable, please install an RSS reader.

All articles published by MDPI are made immediately available worldwide under an open access license. No special permission is required to reuse all or part of the article published by MDPI, including figures and tables. For articles published under an open access Creative Common CC BY license, any part of the article may be reused without permission provided that the original article is clearly cited. For more information, please refer to https://www.mdpi.com/openaccess .

Feature papers represent the most advanced research with significant potential for high impact in the field. A Feature Paper should be a substantial original Article that involves several techniques or approaches, provides an outlook for future research directions and describes possible research applications.

Feature papers are submitted upon individual invitation or recommendation by the scientific editors and must receive positive feedback from the reviewers.

Editor’s Choice articles are based on recommendations by the scientific editors of MDPI journals from around the world. Editors select a small number of articles recently published in the journal that they believe will be particularly interesting to readers, or important in the respective research area. The aim is to provide a snapshot of some of the most exciting work published in the various research areas of the journal.

Original Submission Date Received: .

• Active Journals
• Find a Journal
• Proceedings Series
• For Authors
• For Reviewers
• For Editors
• For Librarians
• For Publishers
• For Societies
• For Conference Organizers
• Open Access Policy
• Institutional Open Access Program
• Special Issues Guidelines
• Editorial Process
• Research and Publication Ethics
• Article Processing Charges
• Testimonials
• Preprints.org
• SciProfiles
• Encyclopedia

Article Menu

• Subscribe SciFeed
• Recommended Articles
• Google Scholar
• on Google Scholar
• Table of Contents

Find support for a specific problem in the support section of our website.

Please let us know what you think of our products and services.

Visit our dedicated information section to learn more about MDPI.

JSmol Viewer

The key factors for improving returns management in e-commerce in indonesia from customers’ perspectives—an analytic hierarchy process approach.

1. Introduction

2. theoretical background, 2.1. reverse logistics: drivers and barriers, 2.2. product return in electronic commerce—key factors and solutions.

• Change of mind or the inclination to order multiple items with different colors and sizes with intention to keep only one of them;
• Habit of ordering a product online to try it at home before visiting and purchasing from a brick-and-mortar store;
• Ordering additional products to qualify for free shipping;
• Returning unwanted gifts;
• ‘Act of wardrobe’, which refers to the practice of returning used items after using them;
• Financial constraints of customers. For example, customers regret spending too much money, customers bought product on impulse, or customers exceed the pre-defined budget.

3. Materials and Methods

5. discussion, 6. conclusions, limitation and future research direction, author contributions, institutional review board statement, informed consent statement, data availability statement, acknowledgments, conflicts of interest.

• Gupta, S.; Kushwaha, P.S.; Badhera, U.; Chatterjee, P.; Gonzalez, E.D.R.S. Identification of Benefits, Challenges, and Pathways in E-Commerce Industries: An Integrated Two-Phase Decision-Making Model. Sustain. Oper. Comput. 2023 , 4 , 200–218. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Chiu, W.-Y.; Tzeng, G.-H.; Li, H.-L. A New Hybrid MCDM Model Combining DANP with VIKOR to Improve E-Store Business. Knowl.-Based Syst. 2013 , 37 , 48–61. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Aggarwal, A.G. Aakash Multi-Criteria-Based Prioritisation of B2C e-Commerce Website. Int. J. Soc. Syst. Sci. 2018 , 10 , 201–222. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Kawa, A.; Pierański, B. Green logistics in e-commerce. LogForum 2021 , 17 , 183–192. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Bjørgen, A.; Bjerkan, K.Y.; Hjelkrem, O.A. E-Groceries: Sustainable Last Mile Distribution in City Planning. Res. Transp. Econ. 2021 , 87 , 100805. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Indonesia Country Profile|Indonesia|Fact Sheet. Available online: https://www.usaid.gov/indonesia/fact-sheets/indonesia-country-profile (accessed on 6 August 2024).
• eCommerce in Indonesia: Market Development, Consumer Preferences, Social Commerce|ECDB.Com. Available online: https://ecommercedb.com/insights/ecommerce-in-indonesia-fueled-by-young-tech-savvy-consumers/4573 (accessed on 6 August 2024).
• Golinska-Dawson, P.; Werner-Lewandowska, K.; Kolinska, K.; Kolinski, A. Impact of Market Drivers on the Digital Maturity of Logistics Processes in a Supply Chain. Sustainability 2023 , 15 , 3120. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Minnema, A.; Bijmolt, T.H.A.; Gensler, S.; Wiesel, T. To Keep or Not to Keep: Effects of Online Customer Reviews on Product Returns. J. Retail. 2016 , 92 , 253–267. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Naseem, M.H.; Yang, J.; Xiang, Z. Prioritizing the Solutions to Reverse Logistics Barriers for the E-Commerce Industry in Pakistan Based on a Fuzzy AHP-TOPSIS Approach. Sustainability 2021 , 13 , 12743. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Bączkiewicz, A.; Kizielewicz, B.; Shekhovtsov, A.; Wątróbski, J.; Sałabun, W. Methodical Aspects of MCDM Based E-Commerce Recommender System. J. Theor. Appl. Electron. Commer. Res. 2021 , 16 , 2192–2229. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Brzezinski, L.; Hadas, L.; Cyplik, P. The Transformation of the Business Model of SMEs Due to COVID-19 Pandemic. Eur. Res. Stud. 2021 , 24 , 915–924. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Cheah, L.; Huang, Q. Comparative Carbon Footprint Assessment of Cross-Border E-Commerce Shipping Options. Transp. Res. Rec. 2022 , 2676 , 584–595. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Ginting, Y.; Chandra, T.; Miran, I.; Yusriadi, Y. Repurchase Intention of E-Commerce Customers in Indonesia: An Overview of the Effect of e-Service Quality, e-Word of Mouth, Customer Trust, and Customer Satisfaction Mediation. Int. J. Data Netw. Sci. 2023 , 7 , 329–340. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Golinska-Dawson, P.; Sethanan, K. Sustainable Urban Freight for Energy-Efficient Smart Cities—Systematic Literature Review. Energies 2023 , 16 , 2617. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Dubisz, D.; Golinska-Dawson, P.; Zawodny, P. Measuring CO 2 Emissions in E-Commerce Deliveries: From Empirical Studies to a New Calculation Approach. Sustainability 2022 , 14 , 16085. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Naseem, M.H.; Yang, J.; Zhang, T.; Alam, W. Utilizing Fuzzy AHP in the Evaluation of Barriers to Blockchain Implementation in Reverse Logistics. Sustainability 2023 , 15 , 7961. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Shih, D.-H.; Huang, F.-C.; Chieh, C.-Y.; Shih, M.-H.; Wu, T.-W. Preventing Return Fraud in Reverse Logistics—A Case Study of ESPRES Solution by Ethereum. J. Theor. Appl. Electron. Commer. Res. 2021 , 16 , 2170–2191. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Bali, S.; Gunasekaran, A.; Aggarwal, S.; Tyagi, B.; Bali, V. A Strategic Decision-Making Framework for Sustainable Reverse Operations. J. Clean. Prod. 2022 , 381 , 135058. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Rogers, D.S.; Tibben-Lembke, R. An Examination of Reverse Logistics Practices. J. Bus. Logist. 2001 , 22 , 129–148. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Golinska, P.; Fertsch, M.; Gómez, J.M.; Oleskow, J. The Concept of Closed-Loop Supply Chain Integration Through Agents-Based System. In Information Technologies in Environmental Engineering ; Gómez, J.M., Sonnenschein, M., Müller, M., Welsch, H., Rautenstrauch, C., Eds.; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2007; pp. 189–202. [ Google Scholar ]
• Kawa, A.; Golinska, P. Supply Chain Arrangements in Recovery Network. In Proceedings of the Agent and Multi-Agent Systems: Technologies and Applications: 4th KES International Symposium, KES-AMSTA 2010, Gdynia, Poland, 23–25 June 2010; pp. 292–301. [ Google Scholar ]
• Hadaś, Ł.; Domański, R.; Wojciechowski, H.; Majewski, A.; Lewandowicz, J. The Role of Packaging in Sustainable Omnichannel Returns—The Perspective of Young Consumers in Poland. Sustainability 2024 , 16 , 2231. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Dabo, A.-A.A.; Hosseinian-Far, A. An Integrated Methodology for Enhancing Reverse Logistics Flows and Networks in Industry 5.0. Logistics 2023 , 7 , 97. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Alarcón, F.; Cortés-Pellicer, P.; Pérez-Perales, D.; Mengual-Recuerda, A. A Reference Model of Reverse Logistics Process for Improving Sustainability in the Supply Chain. Sustainability 2021 , 13 , 10383. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Kar, B.; Kar, S.; Tripathy, S. Product Return in Online Purchase and Demography: E-Commerce Scenario in India. In Empirical Research for Futuristic E-Commerce Systems: Foundations and Applications ; IGI Global: Hershey, PA, USA, 2022; pp. 196–212. ISBN 978-1-66844-969-1. [ Google Scholar ]
• Makkonen, M.; Frank, L.; Kemppainen, T. The Effects of Consumer Demographics and Payment Method Preference on Product Return Frequency and Reasons in Online Shopping ; University of Maribor: Maribor, Slovenia, 2021. [ Google Scholar ]
• Ambilkar, P.; Dohale, V.; Gunasekaran, A.; Bilolikar, V. Product Returns Management: A Comprehensive Review and Future Research Agenda. Int. J. Prod. Res. 2022 , 60 , 3920–3944. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Hıda, K. The Impact of COVID-19 on e-Commerce Product Return Strategies: A Cross-National Study. Master’s Thesis, İzmir Ekonomi Üniversitesi, İzmir, Türkiye, 2021. [ Google Scholar ]
• Ayodele, O.O. The Impact of E-Commerce Adoption on the Return Management of Product: A Case Study of Manufacturing Industry in Nigeria. IRE J. 2024 , 7 , 399–408. [ Google Scholar ]
• Ahsan, K.; Rahman, S. A Systematic Review of E-Tail Product Returns and an Agenda for Future Research. Ind. Manag. Data Syst. 2021 , 122 , 137–166. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Ali, Y.; Zeb, K.; Babar, A.H.K.; Awan, M.A. Identification of Critical Factors for the Implementation of Reverse Logistics in the Manufacturing Industry of Pakistan. J. Def. Anal. Logist. 2021 , 5 , 95–112. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Davidavičienė, V.; Majzoub, M.A. Performance of Reverse Logistics in Electronic Commerce: A Case Study from Lebanon and Syria. Transport 2021 , 36 , 260–282. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Lesmono, S.U.; Santoso, T.; Wijaya, S.; Jie, F. The Effect of Switching Cost and Product Return Management on Repurchase Intent: A Case Study in the B2B Distribution Channel Context in Indonesia. Int. J. Supply Chain Manag. 2020 , 9 , 44–53. [ Google Scholar ]
• Wang, X.; Xie, J.; Fan, Z.-P. B2C Cross-Border E-Commerce Logistics Mode Selection Considering Product Returns. Int. J. Prod. Res. 2021 , 59 , 3841–3860. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Yu, Y.; Kim, H.-S. Online Retailers’ Return Policy and Prefactual Thinking: An Exploratory Study of USA and China e-Commerce Markets. J. Fash. Mark. Manag. Int. J. 2019 , 23 , 504–518. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Michel, A.; Handayani, P.W.; Fitriani, W.R. Mobile Commerce Service Quality Comparison Between Physical and Digital Product. In Proceedings of the 2020 International Conference on Information Management and Technology (ICIMTech), Bandung, Indonesia, 13–14 August 2020; pp. 681–686. [ Google Scholar ]
• Chayanon, S.; Srisorn, W. The Green Capability, Product Return, Value Chain Costing and the Adoption of Closed Loop Supply Chain in the Automobile Industry of Indonesia. Int. J. Supply Chain Manag. 2019 , 8 , 479–491. [ Google Scholar ]
• Wilson, N.; Christella, R. An Empirical Research of Factors Affecting Customer Satisfaction: A Case of the Indonesian E-Commerce Industry. DeReMa J. Manaj. 2019 , 14 , 21. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Lamba, D.; Yadav, D.K.; Barve, A.; Panda, G. Prioritizing Barriers in Reverse Logistics of E-Commerce Supply Chain Using Fuzzy-Analytic Hierarchy Process. Electron. Commer. Res. 2020 , 20 , 381–403. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Sirisawat, P.; Kiatcharoenpol, T. Fuzzy AHP-TOPSIS Approaches to Prioritizing Solutions for Reverse Logistics Barriers. Comput. Ind. Eng. 2018 , 117 , 303–318. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Titiyal, R.; Bhattacharya, S.; Thakkar, J.J. The Distribution Strategy Selection for an E-Tailer Using a Hybrid DANP VIKOR MCDM Model. Benchmarking Int. J. 2019 , 26 , 395–433. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Prakash, C.; Barua, M.K. A Combined MCDM Approach for Evaluation and Selection of Third-Party Reverse Logistics Partner for Indian Electronics Industry. Sustain. Prod. Consum. 2016 , 7 , 66–78. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Arab, A. A Systematic Review of Multi-Objective Optimization Applications in Reverse Logistics. J. Supply Chain Manag. Sci. 2022 , 3 , 37–64. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Sosnowski, P.; Cyplik, P. Closed Loop Supply Chains and Circular Economy—The Possibilities of Interplay. Logforum 2022 , 18 , 505–513. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Kawa, A.; Zdrenka, W. Logistics Value in E-Commerce and Its Impact on Customer Satisfaction, Loyalty and Online Retailers’ Performance. Int. J. Logist. Manag. 2023 , 35 , 577–600. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Alkahtani, M.; Ziout, A.; Salah, B.; Alatefi, M.; Abd Elgawad, A.E.E.; Badwelan, A.; Syarif, U. An Insight into Reverse Logistics with a Focus on Collection Systems. Sustainability 2021 , 13 , 548. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Frei, R.; Jack, L.; Krzyzaniak, S.-A. Mapping Product Returns Processes in Multichannel Retailing: Challenges and Opportunities. Sustainability 2022 , 14 , 1382. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Pei, Z.; Paswan, A. Consumers’ Legitimate and Opportunistic Product Return Behaviors: An Extended Abstract. In Marketing at the Confluence between Entertainment and Analytics ; Rossi, P., Ed.; Springer International Publishing: Cham, Switzerland, 2017; pp. 1405–1408. [ Google Scholar ]
• Prajapati, D.; Pratap, S.; Zhang, M.; Lakshay; Huang, G.Q. Sustainable Forward-Reverse Logistics for Multi-Product Delivery and Pickup in B2C E-Commerce towards the Circular Economy. Int. J. Prod. Econ. 2022 , 253 , 108606. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Zhao, X.; Hu, S.; Meng, X. Who Should Pay for Return Freight in the Online Retailing? Retailers or Consumers. Electron. Commer. Res. 2020 , 20 , 427–452. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Kar, B.; Tripathy, A.; Pathak, M.D. What Causes Product Returns in Online Purchases? A Review and Research Agenda. Prabandhan Indian J. Manag. 2022 , 15 , 46–62. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Saarijärvi, H.; Sutinen, U.-M.; Harris, L.C. Uncovering Consumers’ Returning Behaviour: A Study of Fashion e-Commerce. Int. Rev. Retail Distrib. Consum. Res. 2017 , 27 , 284–299. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Vijayakumar, M. Online shopping: Motivations for purchase, customer satisfaction and product return. Korea Rev. Int. Stud. 2023 , 16 , 98–110. [ Google Scholar ]
• Lin, D.; Lee, C.K.M.; Siu, M.K.; Lau, H.; Choy, K.L. Analysis of Customers’ Return Behaviour after Online Shopping in China Using SEM. Ind. Manag. Amp Data Syst. 2020 , 120 , 883–902. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Qin, Z. The Inventory Control System of Reverse Logistics for E-Commerce Packaging Recovery Based on BP Neural Network. Int. J. Circuits Syst. Signal Process. 2022 , 16 , 413–425. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Risberg, A. A Systematic Literature Review on E-Commerce Logistics: Towards an e-Commerce and Omni-Channel Decision Framework. Int. Rev. Retail Distrib. Consum. Res. 2023 , 33 , 67–91. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Garg, C.P. A Robust Hybrid Decision Model to Evaluate Critical Factors of Reverse Logistics Implementation Using Grey-DEMATEL Framework. Opsearch 2020 , 57 , 837–873. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• de Borba, J.L.G.; de Magalhães, M.R.; Filgueiras, R.S.; Bouzon, M. Barriers in Omnichannel Retailing Returns: A Conceptual Framework. Int. J. Retail Amp; Distrib. Manag. 2020 , 49 , 121–143. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Agrawal, S.; Singh, R.K.; Murtaza, Q. Prioritizing Critical Success Factors for Reverse Logistics Implementation Using Fuzzy-TOPSIS Methodology. J. Ind. Eng. Int. 2016 , 12 , 15–27. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Frei, R.; Jack, L.; Brown, S. Product Returns: A Growing Problem for Business, Society and Environment. Int. J. Oper. Prod. Manag. 2020 , 40 , 1613–1621. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Badenhorst, A. Prioritising the Implementation of Practices to Overcome Operational Barriers in Reverse Logistics: Original Research. J. Transp. Supply Chain Manag. 2016 , 10 , 1–12. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Thiyagarajan, G.; Ali, S. Analysis of Reverse Logistics Implementation Barriers in Online Retail Industry. Indian J. Sci. Technol. 2016 , 9 , 1–16. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Darko, A.; Chan, A.P.C.; Ameyaw, E.E.; Owusu, E.K.; Pärn, E.; Edwards, D.J. Review of Application of Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) in Construction. Int. J. Constr. Manag. 2019 , 19 , 436–452. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Charmaz, K.; Bryant, A. The SAGE Handbook of Grounded Theory ; Sage Publications: New York, NY, USA, 2007; pp. 1–656. [ Google Scholar ]
• Ishizaka, A.; Labib, A. Review of the Main Developments in the Analytic Hierarchy Process. Expert Syst. Appl. 2011 , 38 , 14336–14345. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Saaty, T.L.; Vargas, L.G. The Analytic Network Process. In Decision Making with the Analytic Network Process: Economic, Political, Social and Technological Applications with Benefits, Opportunities, Costs and Risks ; Saaty, T.L., Vargas, L.G., Eds.; Springer: Boston, MA, USA, 2013; pp. 1–40. ISBN 978-1-4614-7279-7. [ Google Scholar ]
• Dong, Y.; Xu, Y.; Li, H.; Dai, M. A Comparative Study of the Numerical Scales and the Prioritization Methods in AHP. Eur. J. Oper. Res. 2008 , 186 , 229–242. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Tutorials—AHP Calculation Methods. Available online: https://www.spicelogic.com/docs/ahpsoftware/intro/ahp-calculation-methods-396 (accessed on 6 August 2024).
• de Araújo, A.C.; Matsuoka, E.M.; Ung, J.E.; Massote, A.; Sampaio, M. An Exploratory Study on the Returns Management Process in an Online Retailer. Int. J. Logist. Res. Appl. 2018 , 21 , 345–362. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Hjort, K.; Hellström, D.; Karlsson, S.; Oghazi, P. Typology of Practices for Managing Consumer Returns in Internet Retailing. Int. J. Phys. Distrib. Logist. Manag. 2019 , 49 , 767–790. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Hjort, K. On Aligning Returns Management with the E-Commerce Strategy to Increase Effectiveness. Ph.D. Thesis, Chalmers University of Technology, Gothenburg, Sweden, 2013. [ Google Scholar ]
• Li, G.; Li, W. The Analysis of Return Reverse Logistics Management Strategy Based on B2C Electronic Commerce ; Atlantis Press: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, October 2015; pp. 757–761. [ Google Scholar ]

Click here to enlarge figure

Share and Cite

Prayogo, D.H.; Domanski, R.; Golinska-Dawson, P. The Key Factors for Improving Returns Management in E-Commerce in Indonesia from Customers’ Perspectives—An Analytic Hierarchy Process Approach. Sustainability 2024 , 16 , 7303. https://doi.org/10.3390/su16177303

Prayogo DH, Domanski R, Golinska-Dawson P. The Key Factors for Improving Returns Management in E-Commerce in Indonesia from Customers’ Perspectives—An Analytic Hierarchy Process Approach. Sustainability . 2024; 16(17):7303. https://doi.org/10.3390/su16177303

Prayogo, Dimas Haki, Roman Domanski, and Paulina Golinska-Dawson. 2024. "The Key Factors for Improving Returns Management in E-Commerce in Indonesia from Customers’ Perspectives—An Analytic Hierarchy Process Approach" Sustainability 16, no. 17: 7303. https://doi.org/10.3390/su16177303

Article Metrics

Article access statistics, further information, mdpi initiatives, follow mdpi.

Subscribe to receive issue release notifications and newsletters from MDPI journals

To read this content please select one of the options below:

Please note you do not have access to teaching notes, supply chain finance: a literature review.

International Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics Management

ISSN : 0960-0035

Article publication date: 12 March 2016

The purpose of this paper is twofold: to classify the research to-date on Supply Chain Finance (SCF) according to the main themes and methods, and to propose directions for future research.

Design/methodology/approach

The review is based on 119 papers mainly published from 2000 to 2014 in international peer-reviewed journals and in the proceedings of international conferences.

The articles that provide a definition of SCF reflect two major perspectives: the ‘finance oriented’ perspective - focused on short-term solutions provided by financial institutions, addressing accounts payable and receivable - and the ‘supply chain oriented’ perspective - which might not involve a financial institution, and is focused on working capital optimisation in terms of accounts payable, receivable, inventories, and sometimes even on fixed asset financing.

Research limitations/implications

While efforts were made to be all-inclusive, significant research efforts may have been inadvertently omitted. However, the authors believe that this review is an accurate representation of the body of research on SCF published during the specified timeframe, and feel that confidence may be placed on the resulting assessments.

Originality/value

The paper presents a comprehensive summary of previous research on this topic and identifies the most important issues that need to be addressed in future research. On the basis of the identified gaps in the literature, four key issues have been highlighted which should be addressed in future research.

Gelsomino, L.M. , Mangiaracina, R. , Perego, A. and Tumino, A. (2016), "Supply chain finance: a literature review", International Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics Management , Vol. 46 No. 4. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJPDLM-08-2014-0173

Emerald Group Publishing Limited

Copyright © 2016, Emerald Group Publishing Limited

Related articles

All feedback is valuable.

Please share your general feedback

Report an issue or find answers to frequently asked questions

Contact Customer Support

• Systematic Review
• Open access
• Published: 23 August 2024

Experience and satisfaction of participants in colorectal cancer screening programs: a qualitative evidence synthesis

• Cristina Hortalà 1 ,
• Clara Selva 2 ,
• Ivan Sola 1 , 3 , 4 &
• Anna Selva 1 , 4 , 5 , 6  

BMC Public Health volume  24 , Article number:  2293 ( 2024 ) Cite this article

354 Accesses

Metrics details

Experience and satisfaction of colorectal cancer screening program participants are among the key factors that determine adherence to these programs. Understanding them is crucial to ensure future participation.

To explore and gain understanding on the experience and satisfaction of the average-risk population participating in colorectal cancer screening programs.

A Qualitative Evidence Synthesis. We conducted a literature search up to April 2023 in Medline, Embase, CINAHL, PsycINFO and ProQuest Dissertations and Thesis. We independently selected the studies for their inclusion, assessed their methodological quality (with CASP tool) and extracted data. Disagreements were solved by consensus. We thoroughly read the selected studies, and analyzed the data following a thematic synthesis approach. We evaluated the confidence in our findings with CERQUAL.

We included six studies: four had an appropriate quality, and two had some methodological limitations. We identified five main findings across studies: (1) Variability in the concerns about the results; (2) Challenges regarding procedure logistics; (3) Care received from the healthcare professionals; (4) Being adequately informed; (5) Expectations and experience with the program. All findings had a moderate level of confidence.

Conclusions

Our qualitative review provides a picture of the experience and satisfaction of the average-risk population participating in colorectal cancer screening programs. Despite some logistical and expectation management issues, the overall satisfaction with the programs is high. More research is needed on the topic, as there are still important gaps in knowledge.

Peer Review reports

Colorectal cancer and cancer screening

Colorectal cancer (CRC) is one of the most diagnosed cancers worldwide. Among men it is the third most diagnosed cancer (after lung and prostate cancer), and in women it is the second most incident, after breast cancer [ 1 ]. In many regions the risk of CRC is around 5%, and the 5-year survival rate is 57% for colon cancer and 56% for rectal cancer [ 2 ].

CRC is a disease that qualifies for screening as defined by the Wilson and Jugner criteria [ 3 ]. These required characteristics are a high incidence rate [ 1 ] with a long preclinical phase, a recognizable and tractable precursor (polyp) and a correlation between tumour stage at diagnosis and mortality rate [ 4 , 5 ].

Organized screening programs have been proven to reduce incidence and mortality associated with CRC [ 6 , 7 ]. These programs are targeted to the average risk population, normally defined as individuals aged 50 or older, with no other additional risk factors such as inflammatory bowel disease or a family history of CRC or polyposis syndrome. There are different tests for CRC screening, but the most recommended and used worldwide are [ 8 , 9 ]: fecal blood test (guaiac faecal occult blood test [gFOBT] and faecal immunochemical test [FIT], both self-collection tests) [ 10 ], sigmoidoscopy [ 11 ] and colonoscopy, that is usually performed under light sedation [ 12 ]. Both fecal blood test and sigmoidoscopy, if positive, require a colonoscopy to explore the whole bowel.

Patient experience and satisfaction

Participation in CRC screening programs is vital as it determines the efficacy of the programs [ 13 ]. The European Council set the desirable participation rate for the average-risk population at 65%, but when looking at European Union citizens, in 2019 the participation ranged from 4.5 − 66.6% for gFBOT, to 22.8 − 71.3% for FIT [ 5 ]. Although FIT is more acceptable than gFOBT because it only requires one sample and does not require dietary restriction, participation rates are still low [ 14 , 15 ]. This very low percentage might be improved by increasing awareness creation, repeated messages, sensitivity to tone and style, and ensuring the quality of the process so that participants have a positive experience of their participation [ 5 , 16 ].

Experience and satisfaction of CRC screening program participants are among the key factors that determine adherence to them. In fact, studies showed that satisfaction with past stool test screening is a strong behavioural predictor of adherence to future screening rounds [ 17 , 18 , 19 ]. Furthermore, the fact that screening programs are aimed at asymptomatic populations that have not required or requested health care and that it is the health system itself that invites them to participate should be borne in mind. For the foregoing reasons, it is important to know what the experience and satisfaction of participants in relation to CRC screening is.

Patient experience and satisfaction are often used interchangeably despite differing slightly in meaning [ 20 , 21 ]. There is no standard definition for patient experience, but in general it refers to the interactions patients have with the healthcare system. It includes aspects such as getting timely appointments, easy access to information and good communication with healthcare providers [ 22 ]. Understanding patient experience is useful to determine whether something that should happen in a health care setting actually happened (e.g. clear communication with doctors or nurses). On the other hand, patient satisfaction measures the extent to which a patient is content with the care they received, it depends on the patient’s expectations [ 22 ] and involves some sort of rating or evaluation [ 21 ]. Two people who receive the exact care can give different satisfaction ratings depending on what expectations they had about the care that was supposed to be delivered.

Why is it important to do this review?

Several studies have measured patient experience and satisfaction with CRC screening, most using self-reported questionnaires [ 23 , 24 ] that are one of the most used methods to quantify and monitor patient satisfaction and experience. However, to delve into and understand the meaning people give to the phenomenon of interest, the qualitative approach is the most appropriate [ 25 , 26 ]. This qualitative approach also enables the detection and identification of possible issues with the screening programs, which might help to improve its quality and acceptance.

Qualitative research on patient satisfaction already exists [ 27 ], but to our knowledge, there is no previous systematic review that summarizes and critically appraises this knowledge adopting a qualitative research perspective.

Our main objective was to explore and gain understanding on the experience and satisfaction of the average-risk population participating in CRC screening programs. As secondary objectives, we aimed to explore any differences in experience and satisfaction of participants according to screening results (positive screening or negative screening) and according to the screening program nature (organized or opportunistic).

Study design

We conducted a Qualitative Evidence Synthesis (QES), which integrates findings from multiple qualitative studies to gain understanding of a research topic, according to standardized methodology [ 28 ], and registered the protocol prospectively at PROSPERO (CRD42022339548). We reported results following the ENTREQ guidelines (Enhancing transparency in reporting the synthesis of qualitative research [ 29 ]).

Eligibility criteria

We structured our clinical question and established our eligibility criteria following the SPIDER framework [ 30 ], one of the available frameworks for qualitative questions recommended by the Cochrane Qualitative and implementation methods group [ 31 ] ( Table  1 ) : “What is the experience and satisfaction of people participating in CRC screening programs”.

We included:

Qualitative studies about participants of a CRC screening program, either organized or opportunistic, regardless of the screening test used, attending at least one screening test and which the primary focus is the experience or satisfaction of participants. Studies should use qualitative methods both for data collection and analysis.

Mixed method studies where it is possible to extract disaggregated data that was collected and analysed using qualitative methods.

Studies published in English, Spanish or French, the languages spoken by the research team.

We excluded:

Studies on programs aimed at people with inflammatory bowel, or polyposis syndromes (Lynch Syndrome), or family history of CRC.

Studies that collect data using qualitative methods but do not analyse these data using qualitative analysis methods.

Search methods

We conducted searches up to April 2023 in the following electronic databases without language or date restrictions: MEDLINE (via PubMed); Embase (via embase.com); CINAHL (via EBSCOHost); PsycINFO (via EBSCOHost).

We developed a search strategy for each database. See annex 1 for the detailed search strategies.

We tracked back from references and citations to relevant studies. We checked references lists from relevant studies and located their citations at the Web of Science and Google Scholar. We also searched for thesis and dissertations in ProQuest Dissertations and Theses Global and for gray literature in OpenGrey ( www.opengrey.eu ).

Selection of studies

We (CH and CS) independently assessed the titles and abstracts of the identified records to evaluate eligibility. We then retrieved the full text of all the papers identified as potentially relevant by one or both review authors. We (CH and CS) then assessed these papers independently. We resolved disagreements by consensus or, when required, by involving a third reviewer (AS). We used the software rayyan.ai ( http://www.rayyan.ai/ ) to conduct the eligibility process, which facilitated the process by enabling efficient importation, collaborative screening, and resolution of conflicts among reviewers.

Data extraction and methodological quality assessment

We designed a data extraction template in an excel file and pilot tested it. One reviewer (CH) conducted the data extraction and a different reviewer (CS) verified that the data was correct. We extracted data on: context and participants (study setting, aims, population characteristics); study design and methods (methodological design and approach, methods for identifying the sample and for recruitment, data collection and analysis methods, any theoretical models used to interpret the findings); Study findings (themes, subthemes, findings and supporting quotations regarding patient satisfaction and experience).

We (CH and CS) independently assessed methodological limitations of included studies using the CASP tool for qualitative research [ 32 ]. We resolved disagreements by discussion or, when required, by involving a third review author [AS].

Data analysis and synthesis

We analysed the data according to a thematic synthesis approach [ 33 ], a method that consists of applying a thematic analysis to an evidence synthesis. It consists of iteratively refining themes based on initial data coding from individual studies included in the review and integrating findings to develop comprehensive and interpretative insights. The thematic synthesis approach consists in three stages which overlapped to some degree:

First, we read the results of all included studies and collected the verbatim findings. One reviewer generated codes based on the results according to its meaning and content (stage 1). We looked for similarities and differences between the codes to detect overlaps and group the codes into a hierarchical tree structure and obtain descriptive themes that constitute our review findings (stage 2).

To answer our review question and try to develop an analytical theme (stage 3), we generated integrative concepts, understandings, and hypothesis from the descriptive themes or review findings.

One author wrote a draft summary of the review findings and then commented it with other review authors to agree on a final version.

Assessing our confidence in the review findings

We (CH and CS) used the CERQual (Confidence in the Evidence from Reviews of Qualitative research) approach to assess our confidence in each review finding [ 34 ]. The CERQual has four key components: Methodological limitations of included studies, coherence of the review finding, adequacy of the data contributing to the review finding and relevance of the included studies to the review question. The final assessment was based on consensus among the review authors. All findings started as high confidence and were then graded down if there were important concerns regarding any of the GRADE-CERQual components.

Review author reflexivity

We represent diverse professional backgrounds with a range of research experiences and expertise that could have biased our input in conducting this review (e.g., one of the reviewers coordinates a population screening programme and, therefore, might have interpreted the findings from the studies from her professional perspective rather than that of a candidate for screening participation). To avoid biases or skewing of the results, we considered how our beliefs would influence our choices while scoping the review and the methods we used, the interpretation of the data and our own interpretation of our findings. That is why we kept a reflexive attitude throughout the review process.

Ethical consideration

As this is a secondary research study, and it did not involve access to individual-level data, we did not seek ethical approval for conducting this systematic review.

We retrieved 2348 references from the search, from which we excluded 806 duplicates and revised 1552 through their title and abstracts. We evaluated the full text of 62 studies. Finally, six studies fulfilled the inclusion criteria. A chart detailing the inclusion/exclusion process can be seen in Fig.  1 . Main characteristics of the included studies are described in Table  2 .

PRISMA chart of the study selection process

The included studies were published between 2003 and 2021 and were all in English. All studies reported on organised screenings programs. The studies were from Denmark [ 36 , 38 ], Sweden [ 35 ], Spain [ 37 ], France [ 39 ] and UK [ 40 ]. Two studies explored the participant’s experience undergoing CRC screening and their screening procedure [ 35 , 36 ], two studies explored how participants experience a positive test result/ cancer diagnosis [ 38 , 40 ] and the remaining studies explored the obstacles to mass colorectal screening [ 39 ], and the factors related to the longitudinal adherence of CRC screening related to experience and satisfaction of the participants [ 37 ].

The studies obtained data from 14 focus groups, 88 semi-structured and 24 open-ended interviews of adult individuals (aged 50–80), who had undergone CRC screening. Three of the studies included the experiences of both faecal testing and colonoscopy [ 35 , 36 , 39 ], two only included the participants’ experience with faecal testing [ 37 , 38 ], and one included the participants experience with either sigmoidoscopy or colonoscopy [ 40 ]. Aubin-Auger’s study [ 39 ] included interviews to both General Practitioners and participants, clearly separated the findings of both, and only those related to patients were included in this review.

As for the analysis of the data, the studies used thematic analysis [ 37 , 38 , 39 ], an inductive qualitative content analysis [ 35 ], a funnel-structured research cycle analysis [ 36 ] and a constant comparative analysis [ 40 ].

Four of the studies had an appropriate methodological quality [ 35 , 36 , 38 , 39 ], but the remaining had important limitations, due to the appropriateness of the analytic approaches used (authors reported opposite approaches to analyse data) [ 37 ] and the value of the research due to the time elapsed since the study was conducted [ 40 ].

The detailed methodological quality assessment can be seen in Table  3 .

Review findings

We identified five descriptive themes: concerns about the results, challenges regarding procedure logistics, care received from the healthcare professionals, being adequately informed and expectations and experience with the program.

Variability in the concerns about the results

All studies reported the participants having varying degrees of concern regarding the possible outcome of the screening tests [ 35 , 36 , 37 , 38 , 39 , 40 ]. Some of them went through screening without any further reflections or concerns about the outcome, as they just assumed that the result would be fine. Having an abnormal FIT result did not shock some of the participants either, as the result was somewhat expected because of previous hemorrhoids or those who had polyps detected during their previous colonoscopies [ 35 ].

Really, I didn’t think I was going to get any reply. When I had sent it away (.) it was in a way pretty much gone for me (.) then I’d done my part and didn’t think about it until I received the result [ 35 ].

Others, however, did struggle with anxious thoughts about the screening outcomes, as they were worried about further medical procedures such as a colonoscopy [ 35 , 36 ]. For some participants, receiving an abnormal FIT result was often accompanied by a dooming mindset expressed as “now it is over” [ 35 ].

In sum, the interpretation of a positive FIT result and perceived risk of CRC was shaped by symptom appraisal and experiences with previous abdominal symptoms and investigation. [ 38 ]

Fear about results was reported to be a determinant factor to explain both why individuals decided to participate, as well as why they sometimes decided to stop participating [ 37 ]. Specifically women with established screening habits (e.g., mammography, cervical smears) and individuals with familial exposure to gFOBT, were more likely to accept participation [ 39 ], as the previous experience reduced their fear, and therefore concern, of a possible positive result.

There are many people who prefer to ignore things, until there is no remedy and then you have to face the problem and say, ok because there is no choice. but if I can avoid knowing. Then there will be a percentage of people who will also do it [to participate] out of fear. I think so [ 37 ] (Female).

Challenges regarding procedure logistics

When commenting on the FIT, participants agreed that the performance of the test was simple and easy, and appreciated being able to perform the procedure at home, even though it sometimes was a bit time-consuming [ 35 , 37 ]. Some patients forgot to perform the FIT, while others lacked time or were indifferent [ 39 ]. Furthermore, when a participant received a positive FIT result, the feeling of uncertainty regarding the upcoming colonoscopy was overwhelming and worries about the discomfort of it arose [ 35 ].

When it comes to doing the [FOBT] test (.) I consider it [the FOBT test] a very comfortable thing. You do it in your house, at the moment [ 37 ] (Male).

The colonoscopy itself proved to be more challenging than FIT, as both the investigation and the bowel preparation were perceived as physically unpleasant, exhausting, and disgusting [ 35 , 36 ], regardless of the use or not of sedatives [ 35 ]. The bowel preparation was specially mentioned to be one of the worst and most troublesome aspects of the colonoscopy [ 35 , 36 ].

The main concern regarding logistics was the interference with daily life. Individuals were required to plan or reschedule other activities to undergo colonoscopy [ 36 ], and that ultimately resulted in them prioritizing their everyday tasks and activities over the actions needed to participate in the screening program [ 37 ], postponing the procedure. Colonoscopy appointments required patients to plan for transportation after the examination, often involving a family member or friend accompanying them to and from the hospital. Having to repeat the FIT test twice was also considered burdensome and time-consuming [ 35 ].

Well yes, that (the bowel preparation) was probably the worst bit/Yes/(.)/Yes, that first litre goes very well but then the next gets tough [ 35 ].

Care received from the healthcare professionals

Four of the six included studies [ 35 , 36 , 38 , 40 ] put an emphasis on the participants’ report of the care received. In all studies, healthcare professionals were described as trust-promoting, empathetic, friendly, easy-going, and attentive. Feeling well treated and cared for was a shared experience among the participants.

She who performed it (the colonoscopy), was a really nice woman (.) and there was nothing wrong with anyone else either, but to me, it gets so much easier when you can take it lightly, make a joke and stuff [ 35 ].

Some patients discussed the positive FIT result with a healthcare professional to talk about the upcoming colonoscopy [ 38 ], as doctors played a significant role in mitigating concern and providing reassurance.

Individuals also shared the importance of being involved during the procedure, especially when healthcare professionals explained real-time findings or removals during colonoscopies. This involvement helped increase trust in the skills of the professional performing the intervention [ 36 ]

It was such a positive experience. They told me during the whole procedure what they saw, and they blew up and removed some tiny little polyps. [ 36 ] (Female, 74).

Being adequately informed

A very commonly discussed theme was the information received by participants for the FIT and gFOBT tests, and whether it was adequate or sufficient [ 35 , 37 ]. Most agreed that there was some confusion surrounding the bureaucratic aspects of the screening process, such as what process to follow to participate, time periods between rounds, age limits for the program, and where to confirm the colonoscopy appointment [ 35 , 39 ].

We have all been relaxed about it because none of us knew that the maximum period between analysis and analysis of the colon are two years, we did not know. And then, well, they have done it and that’s it . and it is not like that [ 37 ] (Male).

The lack of information regarding CRC screening in the media contributed to the general misinformation, which prompted many individuals to consult a general practitioner after receiving the invitation to make the decision to undergo the screening process [ 37 ]. Some patients were not convinced by the explanatory letter and asked their GPs for other reasons why screening was necessary, such as epidemiological factors. [ 39 ] Some other patients preferred managing their health in different ways, such as eating healthy food or exercising, and believed screening was only useful in the case of high-risk familial CRC. [ 39 ].

I went to my GP [before making a decision] and they talked me through it [the letter] a bit [ 37 ] (Male).

Some patients showed a complete lack of knowledge about the test (gFOBT), sometimes thinking that it was a colonoscopy. [ 39 ]

When talking about colonoscopy, participants referred to being well informed both before and during the procedure, which was highly valued as it gave them the feeling of being more involved [ 36 , 37 ].

The way the results were communicated also brought up uncertainties, as participants were not sure whether they had gotten their result, as the letter they received was unclear [ 36 ]. General misinformation also affected how participants interpreted the results, with a positive result being automatically linked to cancer. [ 39 ]

In cases where the patients received a cancer diagnostic, initially they were only told that polyps had been found, interpreting this outcome as non-serious. Despite having a period in which they were essentially symptomatic, they failed to prepare themselves for the possibility that the polyps detected at screening might turn out to be malignant. [ 40 ]

Expectations and experience with the program

Individuals described their expectations not corresponding with the reality of the screening procedure both in a positive and negative way. Their experience with the FIT test was better than what they expected, and they were surprised by its cleanliness and simplicity.

Colonoscopy however, had contradicting experiences. While for some, despite being relatively painless and professional, was worse than what they expected [ 35 ], for others undergoing the colonoscopy was a better experience than anticipated, and the behaviour of healthcare professionals provided comfort, making patients feel less uncomfortable about undergoing a colonoscopy in the future. [ 37 ]

There was a sense of relief once the screening procedure was completed, as they felt pleased since it was considered “good to know” [ 35 ].

I think it is such a comfort to get screened and to be told that there is no cancer at all. I can only be content with this screening procedure. [ 36 ] (Female, 74).

There was a sense of gratitude towards screening offers, as participants appreciated and realized the health benefit that this type of service introduces, not only on an individual level but also on a populational level. Some even considered participating in these programs as a “moral obligation” [ 36 , 37 ]. Even after a cancer diagnostic, no one expressed the view that they wished they had not gone for screening [ 40 ]. Many participants thought that screening can help detect disease at the stage when things can be done, offering a chance of cure, prolonged life, and a choice about whether to go ahead with treatment or not. [ 40 ].

Screening is just something you should do. It is no fun, but you should do it for your family’s sake. This is a priority of society. Finally, when there is a screening offer for men, we should jump at the offer [ 36 ] (Male, 58).

Interpretive explanation of satisfaction with the screening programme

The actual experiences of individuals undergoing CRC screening, compared to initial expectations, significantly impact overall satisfaction, and so, how both factors are shaped will be decisive.

Regarding expectations, they might differ influenced by the participant’s past experiences. On one hand, having undergone screening successfully in the past can encourage them to participate again, but on the other hand, concerns they might have about the procedures can affect how they face the tests, and even prevent them from participating at all. Fear of a positive result can also negatively impact expectations, as people with a more dooming mindset will meet the whole screening process with far worse prospects. Expectations are also easily defined by the information participants receive from both the letter they receive at their home as from the media or their GP. This information needs to be clear and straightforward, as being adequately informed will determine what the participants will assume the whole process will look like.

As for the experiences, the review highlights a wide range of concerns regarding the screening outcome, varying from no concern to anxious thoughts and a dooming mindset among participants. Logistic issues arising from the screening process, particularly challenges with FIT and colonoscopy procedures, were commonly reported. These challenges led to disruptions in daily life, often resulting in the postponement or rescheduling of tests to prioritize participants’ everyday tasks. Notably, participants consistently praised the care provided by healthcare professionals throughout the screening program. The professionals were characterized as empathetic, attentive, and actively involved during procedures. This involvement significantly contributed to participants feeling well-informed both before and during the procedure, in contrast to the general lack of information received prior to the test. The confusion around bureaucratic aspects of the screening program led many individuals to consult GPs after receiving invitations to participate.

In essence, participant satisfaction is a complex interplay of emotional responses, logistical challenges, healthcare professional interactions, information adequacy, and the alignment of expectations with actual experiences during the screening process. Successfully managing these factors contributes to overall participant satisfaction. Therefore, to improve satisfaction with CRC screening programs, it is necessary that the experience of participants is good and that expectations are as alligned as possible with reality. An overview of the construction of the analytical theme can be found in Fig.  2 .

Despite disparities between expectations and the reality of the screening procedure, participants did not express dissatisfaction with the program. Upon finalisation, there was a shared sense of relief, and participants expressed gratitude towards the screening offers.

Confidence in our findings

We presented our confidence in review findings in a CERQual evidence profile table (Table  4 ). All findings had a moderate level of confidence due to the limited amount of data that supported the findings and due to concerns on relevance as the objectives of two included studies [ 37 , 39 ] did not align completely with our research question.

Summary of main findings

Overall, participants describe a generally satisfactory experience with the program.

The review highlights a wide range of concerns regarding the screening outcome, varying from no concern to anxious thoughts and a dooming mindset among participants. Logistic issues arising from the screening process, particularly challenges with colonoscopy procedures and forgetting to do the FIT, were commonly reported. These challenges led to disruptions in daily life, often resulting in the postponement or rescheduling of tests to prioritize participants’ everyday tasks.

Notably, participants consistently praised the care provided by healthcare professionals throughout the screening program. The professionals were characterized as empathetic, attentive, and actively involved during procedures. This involvement significantly contributed to participants feeling well-informed both before and during the procedure, in contrast to the general lack of information received prior to the test. The confusion around bureaucratic aspects of the screening program led many individuals to consult GPs after receiving invitations to participate.

Despite disparities between expectations and the reality of the screening procedure, participants did not express dissatisfaction with the program. Upon finalization, there was a shared sense of relief, and participants expressed gratitude towards the screening offers.

Strengths and limitations of the study

One of the strengths of this study is the extensive effort made to find and review all relevant primary studies by performing exhaustive bibliographic research in four different databases and searching for grey literature. Even though studies in English, Spanish and French were included, other studies relevant to this topic published in other languages might exist. Included studies were all conducted in Europe: three in Nordic countries, two in centre-European countries and one southern-European country which have health care and societal context differences. This proves to be a strength as identifying the most prevalent and convergent experiences of participants in CRC screening programs across countries further increases the confidence in our results. Finally, the originality of our work lies on the fact that, to our knowledge, the are no other qualitative evidence synthesis on this topic.

Our study has some limitations. The first one being the relatively small number of included primary studies in the review. We also could not find the complete text for three preliminarily included studies. All studies were European, which, despite them having different healthcare systems, limits the extrapolation of our results to other regions and contexts. Besides, the small amount of data and concerns about relevance limited the confidence in our findings and did not allow us to answer our secondary objectives.

Comparison to existing literature

One of the main findings of our study were the varying degrees of concern about the results of the screening test. However, after a negative FIT result, or after being cleared of a positive FIT result by a colonoscopy, people felt a huge feeling of relief. This indicates that the confirmation of a good health outcome has a value ‘per se’ [ 41 ]. Just by accepting to participate in the program, individuals accept the risk of “false alarm”, which aggravates the concern of a positive result. At the same time, it has been suggested that participation elicits a feeling of being examined for good, and therefore causing a “relaxation effect” that delays future doctor visits and might deter them from participating again in future screening rounds [ 42 ]. From our findings, we can neither support nor contradict these suggestions.

We have found that many participants feel a moral obligation to participate in screening programs, from personal, interpersonal, and societal perspectives. This finding is reinforced when looking at breast and cervical cancer screening studies, which suggest screening might constitute a moral framework of obligation and responsibility, as these programs are both a social and medical intervention [ 43 , 44 , 45 ]. This might be even more relevant in countries with socialized healthcare systems, which often remind residents about the scarcity of resources, and therefore appeal to their sense of obligation to participate in the screening programs, explaining the high participation levels [ 46 ].

When discussing the tests themselves, previous research confirms that the FIT procedure is considered simple and easy [ 47 ], and participants preferred FITs that were single sample, used a probe and vial for sample collection, and had simple, large font instructions with colourful pictures [ 48 ]. Studies also validate the difficulties with colonoscopy bowel preparation [ 49 ] and suggest that offering different laxative alternatives might help relieve the stress and optimize the preparation [ 50 ].

Published quantitative studies based on surveys/questionnaires also reinforce our findings of a general positive experience with the screening, with room for improvement in the informative material and the colonoscopy preparation [ 51 , 52 ].

Implications of our results and future research

Our study has identified some issues that might negatively affect participants’ satisfaction with CRC screening programs. This knowledge can help in the design of interventions or changes to the current programs that might help alleviate these challenges, including: (1) Having a clearer presentation of the program and what timelines to follow in the letter sent home; (2) Implementing automated reminders via mobile apps or text messages, with prompts to complete the FIT test within recommended time frames (3) Provide a detailed and more realistic explanation about how the colonoscopy preparation is going to be like, so participants’ expectations are better managed.

Our study also highlighted the relevance of HCP in the screening process. Especially General Practitioners, as their support and interactions with participants play a pivotal role in their decision to participate in the programs.

We tried to bring integrated knowledge on the understanding of the experience and satisfaction of participants of CRC screening programs. However, we could only include six studies, which sheds a light into the need of performing more qualitative research on this topic. There were no studies that considered the gender perspective, and whether the satisfaction with the program varied if the participants was a man or a woman, or other demographic differences such as ethnicity or socioeconomic status. There is also a lack of studies answering any of our secondary objectives, such as: whether any differences existed in satisfaction with opportunistic or populational screening, or whether the final screening results impact the overall satisfaction with the programs.

Our qualitative evidence synthesis provided a picture of the experience and satisfaction of participants in CRC screening programs. There are varying degrees of concern about the results derived from their participation, and while the FIT test is easy and straightforward, bowel preparation for colonoscopy is a problem for participants. The screening process interrupts with daily life, which encourages individuals to postpone screening. During the procedure they feel well cared after and informed, but there is still some lack of information that contributes to the mismanagement of expectations. Despite this, the overall satisfaction with the screening programs is high.

Data availability

All data generated or analysed during this study are included in this article. Further enquiries can be directed to the corresponding.

Globocan. Estimated cancer incidence, mortality and prevalence worldwide in 2020 (2020) http://globocan.iarc.fr/Default.aspx

De Angelis R, Sant M, et al. EUROCARE-5 Working Group. Cancer survival in Europe 1999–2007 by country and age: results of EUROCARE–5-a population-based study. Lancet Oncol. 2014;15(1):23–33.

Article   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Wilson JMG, Jungner G. Principles and practice of screening for disease. Geneva: WHO;; 1968. Available from: http://www.who.int/bulletin/volumes/86/4/07-050112BP.pdf.

Dekker E, Tanis PJ, et al. Colorectal cancer Lancet. 2019;354(10207):1467–80.

Google Scholar  

Senore C, Basu P, Anttila A, et al. Perform Colorectal cancer Screen Eur Union Memb States: Data Second Eur Screen Rep Gut. 2019;68:1232–44.

Hewitson P, Glasziou P et al. Screening for colorectal cancer using the faecal occult blood test, Hemoccult Vol. 2007, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. John Wiley and Sons Ltd; 2007.

Shaukat A, Mongin SJ et al. Long-term mortality after screening for Colorectal Cancer. N Engl J Med 2013 Sep 19, 326(12):1106–14.

Navarro M, Nicolas A, et al. Colorectal cancer population screening programs worldwide in 2016: an update. World Journal of Gastroenterology. Volume 23. Baishideng Publishing Group Co., Limited;; 2017. pp. 3232–42.

Schreuders EH, Ruco A, et al. Colorectal cancer screening: a global overview of existing programmes. Gut. 2015;64(10):1633–49.

Article   Google Scholar  

Quintero E, Castells A, et al. Colonoscopy versus fecal immunochemical testing in colorectal-cancer screening. N Engl J Med. 2012;326:697–706.

Brenner H, Stock C, Hoffmeister M. Effect of screening sigmoidoscopy and screening colonoscopy on colorectal cancer incidence and mortality: systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials and observational studies. BMJ. 2014;337:g2467.

Quintero E, Carrillo M, Gimeno-García AZ, et al. Equivalency of fecal immunochemical tests and colonoscopy in familial colorectal cancer screening. Gastroenterology. 2014;147:1021–30. .e1; quiz e16-7.

European Comission. European Guidelines for quality assurance in colorectal cancer screening and diagnosis. First edit. Segnan N, Patnick J. von KL, editor. Luxembourg; 2010.

Vart G, Banzi R, Minozzi S. Comparing participation rates between mmunochemical and guaiac faecal occult blood tests: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Prev Med. 2012;55:87–92. 15.

Moss S, Mathews C, Day TJ et al. Increased uptake and improved outcomes of bowel cancer screening with a faecal immunochemical test: results from a pilot study within the national screening programme in England. Gut 2017;66.

Colorectal screening in. Europe: saving lives and saving Money. February 2020/ Digestive Cancers Europe. https://www.digestivecancers.eu/wp-content/uploads/2020/02/466-Document-DiCEWhitePaper2019.pdf

Osborne JM, Wilson C et al. Patterns of participation over four rounds of annual fecal immunochemical test-based screening for colorectal cancer: what predicts rescreening? BMC Public Health 2017 Aug 1, 18(1).

Duncan A, Turnbull D et al. Behavioural and demographic predictors of adherence to three consecutive faecal occult blood test screening opportunities: a population study. BMC Public Health. 2014;14(1).

Duncan A, Turnbull D, et al. Using the Transtheoretical Model of Behaviour Change to describe readiness to rescreen for colorectal cancer with faecal occult blood testing. Heal Promot J Aust. 2012;23(2):122–8.

Beattie M, Murphy DJm Atherton I, Lauder W. Instruments to measure patient experience of healthcare quality in hospitals: A systematic Review Syst Rev [Internet]. 2015 Jul 23 [cited 2021 Mar 5];4(1). https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/26202326/

Klose K, Kreimeier S, Tangermann U, Aumann I, Damm K. Patient- and person-reports on healthcare: preferences, outcomes, experiences, and satisfaction – an essay. Health Econ Rev. 2016;6(1):1–11.

Agency for healtchcare Research and Quality. https://www.ahrq.gov/cahps/about-cahps/patient-experience/index.html

Kirkøen B, Berstad P, Botteri E, Dalén E, Nilsen J, Hoff G, et al. Acceptability of two colorectal cancer screening tests: pain as a key determinant in sigmoidoscopy. Endoscopy. 2017;49(11):1075–86.

Sipe BW, Fischer M, Baluyut AR, Bishop RH, Born LJ, Daugherty DF, et al. A low-residue diet improved patient satisfaction with split-dose oral sulfate solution without impairing colonic preparation. Gastrointest Endosc. 2013;77(6):932–6.

Berenguera A, Fernández MJ, Pons M, Pujol E, Rodríguez DSS. Escuchar, observar y comprender. Recuperando la narrativa en las Ciencias de la Salud. Aportaciones de la investigación cualitativa 1st ed. Institut Universitari d’Investigació en Atenció Primària Jordi Gol (IDIAP J.Gol), editor. Barcelona; 2014.

Pope CMN. Qualitative research in health care . Books B, editor. London; 2000.

Kotzur M, McCowan C, et al. Why colorectal screening fails to achieve the uptake rates of breast and cervical cancer screening: a comparative qualitative study. BMJ Qual Saf. 2020;29(6):482–90.

Noyes J, Booth A, Cargo M, Flemming K, Garside R, Hannes K, Harden A, Harris J, Lewin S, Pantoja T, Thomas J. Cochrane Qualitative and Implementation Methods Group guidance series-paper 1: introduction. J Clin Epidemiol. 2018;97:34–34. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2017.09.025 .

https:// https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2288-12-181

Cooke A, Smith D, Booth A, Beyond PICO. The SPIDER Tool for qualitative evidence synthesis. Qual Health Res. 2012;22(10):1434–43.

Harris JL, Booth A, Cargo M, Hannes K, Harden A, Flemming K, Garside R, Pantoja T, Thomas J, Noyes J. Cochrane Qualitative and Implementation Methods Group guidance series-paper 2: methods for question formulation, searching, and protocol development for qualitative evidence synthesis. J Clin Epidemiol. 2018;97:39–48.

CASP. Making sense of evidence: 10 questions to help you make sense of qualitative research. Public Health Resource Unit, England; 2013. http://media.wix.com/ugd/dded87_29c5b002d99332f788c6ac670e49f274.pdf .

Thomas J, Harden A. Methods for the thematic synthesis of qualitative research in systematic reviews. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2008;8:45.

Article   PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Lewin S, Booth A, et al. Applying GRADE-CERQual to qualitative evidence synthesis findings: introduction to the series. BioMed Central; 2018.

Wangmar J, et al. Two sides of every coin: individuals’ experiences of undergoing colorectal cancer screening by faecal immunochemical test and colonoscopy. Eur J Public Health. 2021;31(6):1290–5.

Kirkegaard P, et al. A stitch in time saves nine: perceptions about colorectal cancer screening after a non-cancer colonoscopy result. Qualitative study. Patient Educ Couns. 2019;102(7):1333–9.

Benito L, et al. Factors related to longitudinal adherence in colorectal cancer screening: qualitative research findings. Cancer Causes Control. 2018;29(1):103–14.

Kirkegaard P, Edwards A, et al. Waiting for diagnostic colonoscopy: a qualitative exploration of screening participants’ experiences in a FIT-based colorectal cancer screening program. Patient Prefer Adherence. 2018-01-01;12(0):845–52.

Aubin-Auger I, Mercier A, et al. Obstacles to colorectal screening in general practice: a qualitative study of GPs and patients. Fam Pract. 2011;28(6):670–6.

Miles A, Wardle J, et al. Receiving a screen-detected diagnosis of cancer: the experience of participants in the UK flexible sigmoidoscopy trial. Psychooncology. 2003;12(8):784–802.

Lupton D. Medicine as Culture: illness, Disease and the body. 3rd ed. University of Sydney, Australia: Sage; 2012.

Book   Google Scholar  

Petticrew M, Sowden A, et al. False-negative results in screening programs . Medical, psychological, and other implications. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2001;17(2):164–70.

Osterlie W, Solbjor M, et al. Challenges of informed choice in organised screening. J Med Ethics. 2008;33:e5. (September (9)).

Griffiths F, Bendelow G. Etal. Screening for breast cancer: medicalization, visualization and the embodied experience . Health (London). 2010;14:653–68. (November (6)).

Howson A. Surveillance, knowledge and risk: the embodied experience of cervical screening. Health. 1998;2(2):195–215.

Chapple A, Ziebland S, et al. What affects the uptake of screening for bowel cancer using a faecal occult blood test (FOBt): a qualitative study. Soc Sci Med. 2008;66(12):2425–34.

Aguado Loi CX, Martinez Tyson D et al. Simple and easy: ’providers’ and latinos’ perceptions of the fecal immunochemical test (FIT) for colorectal cancer screening. Ethn Health 2018; 1–16.

Pham R, Cross S, et al. Finding the right FIT’: rural patient preferences for fecal immunochemical test (FIT) characteristics. J Am Board Fam Med. 2017;30:632–44.

Denters MJ, Deutekom M, et al. Patient burden of colonoscopy after positive fecal immunochemical testing for colorectal cancer screening. Endoscopy. 2013;45:332–9.

Bechtold ML, Mir F, et al. Optimizing bowel preparation for colonoscopy: a guide to enhance quality of visualization. Ann Gastroenterol. 2016;29:133–46.

Selva A, Mosconi G et al. Participants’ satisfaction with colorectal cancer screening programs: A systematic review Preventive medicine 2023;10776.

Kayal G, Kerrison R, Hirst Y, et al. Patients’ experience of using colonoscopy as a diagnostic test after a positive FOBT/FIT: a systematic review of the quantitative literature. BMJ Open. 2023;13:e071351.

Download references

Acknowledgements

Cristina Hortalà Bas is a doctoral candidate in Methodology of Biomedical Research and Public Health, at the Department of Pediatrics, Obstetrics, Gynaecology and Preventive Medicine and Public Health at Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona, Spain.

This work was supported by Instituto de Salud Carlos Tercero, grant number (PI18/00460).

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Universitat Autònoma de Barcleona, Catalonia, Spain

Cristina Hortalà, Ivan Sola & Anna Selva

Universitat Oberta de Catalunya, Catalonia, Spain

Clara Selva

Iberoamerican Cochrane Centre, Biomedical Research Institute Sant Pau (IIB Sant Pau), Barcelona, Spain

CIBER Epidemiología y Salud Pública (CIBERESP), Madrid, Spain

Ivan Sola & Anna Selva

Clinical Epidemiology and Cancer Screening, Parc Taulí Hospital Universitari. Institut d’Investigació i Innovació Parc Taulí (I3PT_CERCA), Sabadell, Spain

Clinical Epidemiology and Cancer Screening, Parc Taulí Hospital Universitari, Parc Taulí, 1, Sabadell, 08208, Spain

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Contributions

C.H. wrote the main manuscript text. C.H. and C.S. performed the analysis. I.S. designed the search strategy. A.S. reviewed all analysis and provided feedback and guidance. All authors reviewed the manuscript and provided corrections.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Anna Selva .

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate.

Not applicable.

Consent for publication

Competing interests.

The authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher’s note.

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Electronic supplementary material

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary Material 1

Rights and permissions.

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License, which permits any non-commercial use, sharing, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if you modified the licensed material. You do not have permission under this licence to share adapted material derived from this article or parts of it. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/ .

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article.

Hortalà, C., Selva, C., Sola, I. et al. Experience and satisfaction of participants in colorectal cancer screening programs: a qualitative evidence synthesis. BMC Public Health 24 , 2293 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12889-024-19678-1

Download citation

Received : 06 March 2024

Accepted : 02 August 2024

Published : 23 August 2024

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1186/s12889-024-19678-1

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Colorectal neoplasms
• Cancer screening
• Qualitative research
• Systematic review

BMC Public Health

ISSN: 1471-2458

• General enquiries: [email protected]

Inter-firm Collaborative Logistics: Literature Review in the Forest Sector

• Conference paper
• First Online: 28 August 2024
• Cite this conference paper

• Yannie Béland   ORCID: orcid.org/0009-0007-8268-6913 14 ,
• Nadia Lehoux   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0003-4519-7145 14 &
• Luc Lebel   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0001-9553-6139 14  

Part of the book series: Lecture Notes in Networks and Systems ((LNNS,volume 1104))

Included in the following conference series:

• INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE ON LOGISTICS OPERATIONS MANAGEMENT

Harvesting and transportation activities represent a large part of forest companies’ costs. With distances separating forests to mills increasing with time, companies must find new ways to improve their logistics activities and doing so, reduce their costs and CO 2 emissions. The literature review conducted in this article showed that collaboration is a very efficient way to reduce expenses, especially with wood bartering, transport consolidation, backhauling and logistics platforms for sorting, consolidating, and warehousing. Although studies showed that collaboration can generate major financial and environmental benefits, only a few examples of successful partnerships exist. This article thus highlights methods which have the potential to support collaborative logistics in the forest sector, while identifying the lack of documented partnerships examples in the literature.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Subscribe and save.

• Get 10 units per month
• Download Article/Chapter or eBook
• 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
• Cancel anytime
• Available as PDF
• Read on any device
• Instant download
• Own it forever
• Available as EPUB and PDF
• Compact, lightweight edition
• Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
• Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Mrabti, N., Hamani, N., Boulaksil, Y., Gargouri, A., Delahoche, M.: A multi-objective optimization model for the problems of sustainable collaborative hub location and cost sharing. Transp. Res. Part E: Logist. Transp. Rev. (2022)

Google Scholar  

Audy, J.-F., Lehoux, N., D’Amours, S., Rönnqvist, M.: A framework for an efficient implementation of logistics collaborations. Int. Trans. Oper. Res. (2012)

Senkel, M.-P., Durand, B., Vo, T.l.H.: La mutualisation logistique: entre théories et pratiques. Logistique Manag. (2015)

Aloui, A., Mrabti, N., Hamani, N., Delahoche, L.: Towards a collaborative and integrated optimization approach in sustainable freight transportation. IFAC-PapersOnLine (2021)

Zineldin, M., Bredenlöw, T.: Strategic alliance: synergies and challenges: a case of strategic outsourcing relationship “SOUR”. Int. J. Phys. Distrib. Logist. Manag. (2003)

Boell, S.K., Cecez-Kecmanovic, D.: A hermeneutic approach for conducting literature reviews and literature searches (2014)

Publics, S., Gouvernement du Canada, A.C.: TERMIUM Plus®—Recherche - Tous les termes - TERMIUM Plus® - Bureau de la traduction

François, J., Bourrières, J.-P.: Benchmarking collaborative timber supply chains. Scand. J. Forest Res. (2021)

Sarrazin, F., LeBel, L., Lehoux, N.: Analyzing the impact of implementing a logistics center for a complex forest network. Can. J. For. Res. (2019)

Sarrazin, F., LeBel, L., Lehoux, N.: Regional logistics centre: application to Eastern Canada. INFOR: Inf. Syst. Oper. Res. (2021)

Grundey et Rimienė: Logistics centre concept through evolution and definition. Eng. Econ. (2007)

Mamede, B.M., Oliveira, G.A.eS., Machado, R.L.: Multimodal logistic platforms structure analysis worldwide: a comparative study between Brazilian and foreign projects. Brazil. J. Oper. Prod. Manag. (2017)

Serrano, C., Delorme, X., Dolgui, A.: Distribution and operation planning at a cross-dock platform: a case of study at Renault. In: 4th International Conference on Advanced Logistics and Transport (2015)

Trappey, C.V., Lin, G.Y.P., Trappey, A.J.C., Liu, C.S., Lee, W.T.: Deriving industrial logistics hub reference models for manufacturing based economies. Expert Syst. Appl. (2011)

Wei, H., Wu, F.: Formation of coordinated alliance for china railway express platforms considering logistics cost sharing. Transp. Res. Rec. (2023)

Alayet, C., Lehoux, N., Lebel, L., Bouchard, M.: Centralized supply chain planning model for multiple forest companies. INFOR: Inf. Syst. Oper. Res. (2016)

D’Amours, M. Rönnqvist, S., Weintraub, A.: Using operational research for supply chain planning in the forest products industry. INFOR: Inf. Syst. Oper. Res. (2008)

Gil, A., Frayret, J.-M.: Log classification in the hardwood timber industry: method and value analysis. Int. J. Prod. Res. (2016)

Dramm, J.R., Jackson, G.L., Wong, J.: Review of log sort yards. United States Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Forest Products Laboratory (2002)

Kutsenko, E., Berezhnaya, L., Galtseva, O., Plotnikova, I.: Designing the logistics center structure using the systematic layout planning. présenté à International Scientific Conference « Far East Con » (ISCFEC 2018), Atlantis Press (2019)

Abasian, F., Rönnqvist, M., Ouhimmou, M.: Forest fibre network design with multiple assortments: a case study in Newfoundland. Can. J. For. Res. (2017)

François, J., Moad, K., Bourrières, J.-P., Lebel, L.: A tactical planning model for collaborative timber transport. IFAC-PapersOnLine (2017)

Guajardo, M., Rönnqvist, M., Flisberg, P.: Frisk, M.: Collaborative transportation with overlapping coalitions. Eur. J. Oper. Res. (2018)

Murphy, G.: Reducing trucks on the road through optimal route scheduling and shared log transport services. Southern J. Appl. Forestry (2003)

Padilla Tinoco, S.V., Creemers, S., Boute, R.N.: Collaborative shipping under different cost-sharing agreements. Eur. J. Oper. Res. (2017)

Palander, T., Väätäinen, J.: Impacts of interenterprise collaboration and backhauling on wood procurement in Finland. Scand. J. Forest Res. (2005)

Serrano-Hernández, A., Juan, A.A., Faulin, J., Pérez-Bernabeu, E.: Horizontal collaboration in freight transport: concepts, benefits and environmental challenges. SORT. Stat. Oper. Res. Trans. (2017)

Shi, Y., Lin, N., Han, Q., Zhang, T., Shen, W.: A method for transportation planning and profit sharing in collaborative multi-carrier vehicle routing. Mathematics (2020)

Agussurja, L., Lau, H.C., Cheng, S.-F.: Achieving stable and fair profit allocation with minimum subsidy in collaborative logistics. In: AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence (2016)

Bouchery, Y., Hezarkhani, B., Stauffer, G.: Coalition formation and cost sharing for truck platooning. Transp. Res. Part B: Methodol. (2022)

D’Amours, S., Rönnqvist, M.: An educational game in collaborative logistics. INFORMS Trans. Educ. (2013)

Flisberg, P., Frisk, M., Guajardo, M., Rönnqvist, M.: Reallocation of logistics costs in a cooperative network of sawmills. In: Diez, P., Neittaanmäki, P., Periaux, J., Tuovinen, T., Bräysy, O. (eds.) ECCOMAS 2015. CMAS, vol. 45, pp. 171–183. Springer, Cham (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-54490-8_11

Chapter   Google Scholar  

Frisk, M., Göthe-Lundgren, M., Jörnsten, K., Rönnqvist, M.: Cost allocation in collaborative forest transportation. Eur. J. Oper. Res. (2010)

Guajardo, M., Rönnqvist, M.: A review on cost allocation methods in collaborative transportation. Int. Trans. Oper. Res. (2016)

Rönnqvist, M., Flisberg, P., Frisk, M., Guajardo, M.: The aftermath of implementing collaboration in a network of sawmills: a retrospective analysis on logistics costs. In: Temponi, C., Vandaele, N. (eds.) ILS 2018. LNBIP, vol. 262, pp. 47–60. Springer, Cham (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-73758-4_4

Verdonck, L., Beullens, P., Caris, A., Ramaekers, K., Janssens, G.K.: Analysis of collaborative savings and cost allocation techniques for the cooperative carrier facility location problem. J. Oper. Res. Soc. (2016)

Wen, M., Larsen, R., Ropke, S., Petersen, H.L., Madsen, O.B.G.: Centralised horizontal cooperation and profit sharing in a shipping pool. J. Oper. Res. Soc. (2019)

Yea, M., Kim, D., Cheong, T., Moon, J., Kang, S.: Baking and slicing the pie: an application to the airline alliance’s profit-sharing based on cooperative game theory. J. Air Transp. Manag. (2022)

Alam, M.B., Shahi, C., Pulkki, R.: Economic impact of enhanced forest inventory information and merchandizing yards in the forest product industry supply chain. Socio-Econ. Plan. Sci. (2014)

Almalki, M., Alkahtani, M.: Allocation of regional logistics hubs and assessing their contribution to Saudi Arabia’s logistics performance index ranking. Sustainability (2022)

Nataraj, S., Ferone, D., Quintero-Araujo, C., Juan, A.A., Festa, P.: Consolidation centers in city logistics: a cooperative approach based on the location routing problem (2019)

Önden, I., Acar, A.Z., Eldemir, F.: Evaluation of the logistics center locations using a multi-criteria spatial approach. Transport (2018)

Pham, T.Y., Ma, H.M., Yeo, G.T.: Application of fuzzy Delphi TOPSIS to locate logistics centers in Vietnam: the logisticians’ perspective. Asian J. Ship. Logist. (2017)

Sessions, J., Boston, K., Hill, R., Stewart, R.: Log sorting location decisions under uncertainty (2005)

Stevic, Z., Veskovic, S., Vasiljevic, M., Tepic, G.: The selection of the logistics center location using AHP method. In: Vidovic, M., Kilibarda, M., Zecevic, S., Miljus, M., Radivojevic, G. (eds.) Proceedings of the 2nd Logistics International Conference. Univ Belgrade, Fac Transport and Traffic Engineering, Belgrade (2015)

Wen, R., Yan, W., Zhang, A.N.: Weighted clustering of spatial pattern for optimal logistics hub deployment. In: 2016 IEEE International Conference on Big Data (Big Data) (2016)

Witkowski, K., Mrówczyńska, M., Bazan-Krzywoszańska, A., Skiba, M.: Methods for determining potential sites for the location of logistics centres on the basis of multicriteria analysis (2018)

Yazdani, M., Chatterjee, P., Pamucar, D., Chakraborty, S.: Development of an integrated decision making model for location selection of logistics centers in the Spanish autonomous communities. Expert Syst. Appl. (2020)

Yildiz, K., Tabak, Ç., Yerli̇Kaya, M.A., Efe, B.: A logistics model suggestion for a logistics centre to be established: an application in Aegean and central Anatolia region. Gazi Univ. J. Sci. (2022)

Zhang, X., Lu, J., Peng, Y.: Hybrid MCDM model for location of logistics hub: a case in China under the belt and road initiative. IEEE Access (2021)

Basso, F., D’Amours, S., Rönnqvist, M., Weintraub, A.: A survey on obstacles and difficulties of practical implementation of horizontal collaboration in logistics. Int. Trans. Oper. Res. (2019)

Greenslade, C., Murphy, R.J., Morse, S., Griffiths, G.H.: Breaking down the barriers: exploring the role of collaboration in the forestry sector of South East England. Sustainability (2021)

Chen, J.: Establishment on evaluation index system for urban logistics center location scheme. présenté à 2017 5th International Education, Economics, Social Science, Arts, Sports and Management Engineering Conference (IEESASM 2017). Atlantis Press (2018)

Keleş, N., Pekkaya, M.: Evaluation of logistics centers in terms of sustainability via MCDM methods. J. Adv. Manag. Res. (2023)

Sarrazin, F., LeBel, L., Lehoux, N.: Identifying key factors for the success of a regional logistic center. Forest Sci. (2018)

Ramanathan, R.: Multicriteria analysis of energy. In: Cleveland, C.J. (ed.) Encyclopedia of Energy. Elsevier, New York (2004)

Sładkowski, A., Teltayev, B., Izteleuova, M.: Multi-criteria choice of the region for the construction of a logistics center based on AHP: case study for Kazakhstan. Transp. Probl. Int. Sci. J. (2020)

Bennani, M., Jawab, F., Hani, Y., ElMhamedi, A., Amegouz, D.: A hybrid MCDM for the location of urban distribution centers under uncertainty: a case study of Casablanca, Morocco. Sustainability (2022)

Lehoux, N., Marier, P., D’Amours, S., Ouellet, D., Beaulieu, J.: The value creation network of Canadian wood fibre (2012)

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors thank the Fonds de recherche du Québec for their financial support.

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Laval University, Quebec, QC, G1V 0A6, Canada

Yannie Béland, Nadia Lehoux & Luc Lebel

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Yannie Béland .

Editor information

Editors and affiliations.

National School of Computer Science, Rabat, Morocco

Youssef Benadada

ENSIAS, Rabat, Morocco

Fatima-Zahra Mhada

Le Havre University, Le Havre, France

Jaouad Boukachour

Fatima Ouzayd

EUROMED, Fes, Morocco

Ahmed El Hilali Alaoui

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2024 The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this paper

Cite this paper.

Béland, Y., Lehoux, N., Lebel, L. (2024). Inter-firm Collaborative Logistics: Literature Review in the Forest Sector. In: Benadada, Y., Mhada, FZ., Boukachour, J., Ouzayd, F., El Hilali Alaoui, A. (eds) Proceeding of the 7th International Conference on Logistics Operations Management, GOL'24. GOL 2024. Lecture Notes in Networks and Systems, vol 1104. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-68628-3_36

Download citation

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-68628-3_36

Published : 28 August 2024

Publisher Name : Springer, Cham

Print ISBN : 978-3-031-68627-6

Online ISBN : 978-3-031-68628-3

eBook Packages : Intelligent Technologies and Robotics Intelligent Technologies and Robotics (R0)

Share this paper

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Publish with us

Policies and ethics

• Find a journal
• Track your research