ArticleCancer2011
Expanding colorectal cancer screening among minority women.
Article in Cancer, 2011. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers, 2 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
7 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 13 citations in OpenAlex.
- Characterization of the Hispanic or latino population in health research: a systematic review.Journal of immigrant and minority health · 2014Pooled it
- Colorectal cancer screening among Korean Americans: a systematic review.Journal of community health · 2014Pooled it
- Primary care colorectal cancer screening correlates with breast cancer screening: implications for colorectal cancer screening improvement interventions.Clinical and translational gastroenterology · 2018Article
- Determinants of variations in self-reported barriers to colonoscopy among uninsured patients in a primary care setting.Journal of community health · 2015Article
- Article
- Shared decision-making about colorectal cancer screening: a conceptual framework to guide research.Patient education and counseling · 2013Article
- Surveillance of colorectal cancer screening in new Mexico hispanics and non-Hispanic whites.Journal of community health · 2012Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundColorectal cancer screening (CRCS) in the United States is inadequate in minority communities and particularly among those who lack insurance. Finding ways to increase screenings in these minorities presents a healthcare challenge. The authors sought to determine whether offering CRCS at the time of mammography is an effective way to increase CRCS among minority women.
methodsThis study was offered to women attending the Breast Examination Center of Harlem (BECH), a community outreach program of Memorial Sloan-Kettering serving the primarily black and Hispanic Harlem Community. Screening was explained, medical fitness was determined, and colonoscopies were performed. Barriers to screening and ways to overcome them were ascertained. Participants had to be at least 50 years of age without a history of colorectal cancer or screening within the last 10 years.
resultsThere were 2616 women eligible for CRCS, of these women 2005 (77%) refused to participate in the study, and 611 (23%) women were enrolled. There was a high interest in CRCS including among those who declined to participate in the study. The major barrier was lack of medical insurance, which was partially overcome by alternative funding. Of the 611 women enrolled, 337 (55%) went on to have screening colonoscopy. Forty-nine (15%) women had adenomatous polyps.
conclusionsOffering CRCS to minority women at the time of mammography and without a physician's referral is an effective way to expand screening. Screening colonoscopy findings are similar to those in the general population. Alternatives to traditional medical insurance are needed for the uninsured.
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.