Evidence map›Paper›PMID 17665496›Full record

ArticleCancer2007

Improving colorectal cancer screening by using community volunteers: results of the Carolinas cancer education and screening (CARES) project.

Mira L Katz, Cathy Tatum, Stephanie L Dickinson, David M Murray, Kristie Long-Foley, M Robert Cooper, Morgan Daven, Electra D Paskett

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Cancer, 2007. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 20 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
20citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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

20 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. Trial
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Association of health beliefs and colonoscopy use among survivors of colorectal cancer.Journal of cancer survivorship : research and practice · 2009
    Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
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

8 authors.

Mira L KatzHealth Behavior and Health Promotion, College of Public Health, and Comprehensive Cancer Center, The Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio 43210, USA. mira.katz@osumc.edu
Cathy Tatum
Stephanie L Dickinson
David M Murray
Kristie Long-Foley
M Robert Cooper
Morgan Daven
Electra D Paskett

Funding

Patient Activation To Increase Colon Cancer ScreeningK07CA107079 · NCI · OHIO STATE UNIVERSITY · PI KATZ, MIRA L · 2005 to 2009
$783k
NCI NIH HHS 1 K07 CA107079NCI NIH HHS K07 CA107079
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe goal of the Carolinas Cancer Education and Screening (CARES) Project was to improve colorectal cancer (CRC) screening among low-income women in subsidized housing communities in 11 cities in North and South Carolina who were traditionally underserved by cancer control efforts.

methodsCross-sectional samples were randomly selected from housing authority lists at 5 timepoints in this nonrandomized community-based intervention study. Face-to-face interviews focused on CRC knowledge, beliefs, barriers to screening, and screening behaviors. The intervention components were based on a previous evidence-based program.

resultsA total of 2098 surveys were completed. Seventy-eight percent of the respondents were African American, 62% were 65+ years, and 4% were married. At baseline, the rate of CRC screening within guidelines was 49.3% and physician recommendation was the strongest predictor (odds ratio [OR] = 21.9) of being within guidelines. There was an increase in positive beliefs about CRC screening (P = .010) and in the intention to complete CRC screening in the next 12 months (P = .053) after the intervention. The odds of being within CRC screening guidelines for women living in a city that had received the intervention were not significantly different from women living in a city that had not received the intervention (P = .496).

conclusionsAlthough CRC screening rates were not significantly better after the intervention, there was a positive change in beliefs about screening and intention to be screened. The results suggest that the dissemination of an evidence-based behavioral intervention may require a longer duration to engage hard-to-reach populations and change behaviors.

Indexed as

Health BehaviorHealth EducationMass ScreeningVolunteersAgedAged, 80 and overBlack or African AmericanColorectal NeoplasmsCross-Sectional StudiesFemaleHumansMiddle AgedNorth CarolinaOdds RatioPovertyPreventive Health Services

Identifiers

PMID17665496
PMCPMC3895453

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.