ArticleCancer science2007
Awareness of and adherence to cancer screening guidelines among health professionals in Japan.
Article in Cancer science, 2007. 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, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
- Rethinking Local Cancer Overscreening in Japan: A Path toward Organized Screening.JMA journal · 2026Article
- Sentiment analysis of cancer screening in Chinese social media: Qualitative studies based on machine learning.PloS one · 2025Article
- Determinants of Awareness of Clinical Practice Guidelines among Healthcare Users in Japan.Journal of patient experience · 2023Article
- An eight-year snapshot of geospatial cancer research (2002-2009): clinico-epidemiological and methodological findings and trends.Medical oncology (Northwood, London, England) · 2011Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 1 institution in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Since 1998 in Japan, guidelines for cancer screening programs have been developed and revised by a research group funded by the Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare. However, little is known about health professionals' awareness of and adherence to the cancer screening guidelines. Surveys were conducted by mailing questionnaires to two target groups of health professionals: local government officers of municipal cancer screening programs of 3327 municipalities in 47 prefectures (local government officers group; n = 3327) and councilors of an academic society dealing with a mass survey of gastroenterological cancer (expert group; n = 195). The questionnaire contained questions dealing with: (1) awareness of and adherence to the cancer screening guidelines published in 2001, and (2) basic knowledge of and attitude towards cancer screening. We compared the responses of the two groups. The response rate in both groups was approximately 65%. Over 70% of the respondents were aware of the cancer screening guidelines. However, 20% of the local government officers and 35% of the experts thought that non-recommended methods could be used for population-based screening. Fifty-six percent of the local government officers and 76% of the experts responded that there was no problem with using non-recommended methods for opportunistic screening. Almost all health professionals believed that screening was 'almost always a good idea'. Although the two groups' backgrounds differed, both did not sufficiently understand the evidence-based approach for cancer screening. To properly conduct evidence-based cancer screening, it is necessary that health professionals have an appropriate understanding of the guidelines.
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.