Evidence map›Paper›PMID 17537173›Full record

ArticleCancer science2007

Awareness of and adherence to cancer screening guidelines among health professionals in Japan.

Chisato Hamashima, Hiroshi Saito, Tomotaka Sobue

Open access · bronzeAbstract read
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed
0.2field-weighted citation impact, top 45% of its field
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

4 citing papers in PubMed, 6 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors at 1 institution in 2 countries.

Chisato HamashimaCancer Screening Technology Division, Research Center for Cancer Prevention and Screening, National Cancer Center, Tokyo, Japan. chamashi@ncc.go.jp
Hiroshi Saito
Tomotaka Sobue
National Cancer Centre Japan · JP

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

Attitude of Health PersonnelGuideline AdherenceHealth Knowledge, Attitudes, PracticeHealth OccupationsPractice Guidelines as TopicAdultAgedFemaleHealth Care SurveysHumansJapanMaleMiddle AgedNeoplasmsSurveys and Questionnaires

Identifiers

PMID17537173
PMCPMC11159036
OpenAlexW2093483900

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.