ArticleJournal of general internal medicine2009
Use of colon cancer testing in rural Colorado primary care practices.
Article in Journal of general internal medicine, 2009. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 7 citations in OpenAlex.
- Testing to prevent colon cancer: results from a rural community intervention.Annals of family medicineTrial
- Colorectal cancer and screening awareness and sources of information in the Hungarian population.BMC family practice · 2018Article
- Predictors of CT colonography utilization among asymptomatic medicare beneficiaries.Journal of general internal medicine · 2013Article
- Motivation-based intervention to promote colonoscopy screening: an integration of a fear management model and motivational interviewing.Journal of health psychology · 2011Article
- Boot camp translation: a method for building a community of solution.Journal of the American Board of Family Medicine : JABFMArticle
- Testing to prevent colon cancer: how rural community members took on a community-based intervention.Annals of family medicineArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundPeople living in rural areas may be less likely to be up to date (UTD) with screening guidelines for colorectal cancer (CRC).
objectivesTo determine (1) rates of being UTD with screening or ever having had a test for CRC and (2) correlates for testing among patients living in a rural area who visit a provider.
designCross-sectional survey.
participantsFive hundred seventy patients aged 50 years and older who visited their health-care provider in High Plains Research Network (HPRN) practices. MEASUREMENTS: (1) Ever having had a CRC screening test, (2) being UTD with CRC screening, and (3) intention to get tested.
resultsThe survey completion rate was 65%; 71% of patients had ever had any CRC screening test, while 52% of patients were UTD. Correlates of intending to get tested included having a family history of CRC, having a doctor recommend a test, knowing somebody who got tested, and believing that testing for CRC gives one a feeling of being in control of their health. Of those who had never had a CRC screening test, 12% planned on getting tested in the future, while 55% of those who were already up to date intended to be tested again (p < 0.001).
conclusionsPrevalence of being UTD with CRC testing in the HPRN was on par with statewide CRC testing rates, but over three quarters of patients who had not yet been screened had no intention of getting tested for CRC, despite having a medical home.
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.