ArticleAnnals of family medicine
Long-term results from a randomized controlled trial to increase cancer screening among attendees of community health centers.
Article in Annals of family medicine. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 21 papers, 6 of them syntheses that pooled it.
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
21 citing papers in PubMed, 6 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Interventions targeted at women to encourage the uptake of cervical screening.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2021Pooled it
- Evaluation of Interventions Intended to Increase Colorectal Cancer Screening Rates in the United States: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.JAMA internal medicine · 2018Pooled it
- Interventions targeted at women to encourage the uptake of cervical screening.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2011Pooled it
- Interventions to enhance breast cancer screening, diagnosis, and treatment among racial and ethnic minority women.Medical care research and review : MCRR · 2007Pooled it
- Community health center quality improvement: a systematic review and future directions for research.Progress in community health partnerships : research, education, and action · 2007Pooled it
- Systematic review and meta-analysis of practice facilitation within primary care settings.Annals of family medicinePooled it
- Trial
- Trial
- A real-world stepped wedge cluster randomized trial of practice facilitation to improve cardiovascular care.Implementation science : IS · 2015Trial
- An automated intervention with stepped increases in support to increase uptake of colorectal cancer screening: a randomized trial.Annals of internal medicine · 2013Trial
- Telephone care management to improve cancer screening among low-income women: a randomized, controlled trial.Annals of internal medicine · 2006Trial
- Program to improve colorectal cancer screening in a low-income, racially diverse population: a randomized controlled trial.Annals of family medicineTrial
- Translation of an efficacious cancer-screening intervention to women enrolled in a Medicaid managed care organization.Annals of family medicineTrial
- Heal the Healers: A pilot study evaluating the feasibility, acceptability, and exploratory efficacy of a Transcendental Meditation intervention for emergency clinicians during the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic.Journal of the American College of Emergency Physicians open · 2021Article
- Reasons for never and intermittent completion of colorectal cancer screening after receiving multiple rounds of mailed fecal tests.BMC public health · 2017Article
- Appalachian women's perspectives on breast and cervical cancer screening.Rural and remote health · 2013Article
- Factors influencing colorectal cancer screening participation.Gastroenterology research and practice · 2012Article
- Cluster randomized trials of cancer screening interventions: are appropriate statistical methods being used?Contemporary clinical trials · 2011Article
- Analysis of group randomized trials with multiple binary endpoints and small number of groups.PloS one · 2009Article
- The effects of teamwork and system support on colorectal cancer screening in primary care practices.Cancer detection and prevention · 2007Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
purposeWe assessed whether increased cancer screening rates that were observed with Cancer Screening Office Systems (Cancer SOS) could be maintained at 24 months' follow-up, a period in which clinics were expected to be largely self-sufficient in maintaining the intervention.
methodsEight primary care clinics serving disadvantaged populations in Hills-borough County, Fla, agreed to take part in a cluster-randomized experimental trial. Charts of independent samples of established patients aged 50 to 75 years were abstracted, with data collected at baseline (n = 1,196) and at 24 months' follow-up (n = 1,296). Papanicolaou (Pap) smears, mammography, and fecal occult blood testing were assessed.
resultsAt 24 months of follow-up, intervention patients had received a greater number of cancer screening tests (mean 1.17 tests vs 0.94 tests, t test = 4.42, P <.0001). In multivariate analysis that controlled for baseline screening rates, secular trends, and other patient and clinic characteristics, the intervention increased the odds of mammograms slightly (odds ratio [OR]) = 1.26; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.02-1.55; P = .03) but had no effect on fecal occult blood tests (OR = 1.17; 95% CI, 0.92-1.48; P =0.19) or Pap smears (OR = 0.88; 95% CI, 0.0.68-1.15; P = .34).
conclusionsThe Cancer SOS intervention had persistent, although modest, effects on screening at 24 months' follow-up, an effect that had clearly diminished from results reported at 12 months' follow-up. Further study is needed to develop successful intervention strategies that are either self-sustaining or that are able to produce long-term changes in screening behavior.
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.