Trial reportAmerican journal of public health1992
Improving referral compliance after public cholesterol screening.
Trial report in American journal of public health, 1992. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- A comparison of screening methods for sleep disorders in Australian community pharmacies: a randomized controlled trial.PloS one · 2014Trial
- The costs and effects of a nutritional education program following work-site cholesterol screening.American journal of public health · 1995Trial
- Referral Compliance Following a Diabetes Screening in a Dental Setting: A Scoping Review.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Article
- Participants' perceptions of interactions with community health workers who promote behavior change: a qualitative characterization from participants with normal, depressive and anxious mood states.International journal for equity in health · 2018Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundNoncompliance with referral to a physician for retesting and diagnosis is a concern in public cholesterol screening.
methodsParticipants (n = 2109) were referred by a health professional or lay communicator and randomly assigned to a coupon offer, referral reminder letter, or control group. A questionnaire was completed at screening, and a telephone interview was conducted 5 months later.
resultsPhysician visit rates showed no professional or lay differences. For "no history" subjects, the behavioral interventions were effective compared with controls (coupon = 60.7% and reminder = 57.7% vs control = 46.1%). With professional counseling, only the coupon was effective; for lay counseling, both coupon and reminder yielded higher visit rates. Adjusted for sociodemographics, heart disease risk factors, and health perceptions, the intervention effects remained (professional-coupon offer: odds ratio [OR] = 1.94, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.21, 3.09; professional-reminder letter: OR = 1.04, 95% CI = 0.67, 1.63; lay-coupon offer: OR = 2.52, 95% CI = 1.52, 4.18; and lay-reminder letter: OR = 3.10, 95% CI = 1.83, 5.22).
conclusionsFor unaware participants, lay counselors and referral follow-up efforts tailored to specific cholesterol risk groups are indicated.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.