Evidence map›Paper›PMID 21264828›Full record

ArticleCancer2011

Minimal social network effects evident in cancer screening behavior.

Nancy L Keating, A James O'Malley, Joanne M Murabito, Kirsten P Smith, Nicholas A Christakis

Open access · bronzeAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Cancer, 2011. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 29 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
29citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
2.3field-weighted citation impact, top 11% 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

29 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 59 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. The company you keep: health behavior among work peers.The European journal of health economics : HEPAC : health economics in prevention and care · 2020
    Article
  10. Article
  11. Explaining Perceived Priorities in Women with Breast Cancer: A Qualitative Study.Asian Pacific journal of cancer prevention : APJCP · 2019
    Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Conversations about Abnormal Mammograms on Distress and Timely Follow-up Across Ethnicity.Journal of cancer education : the official journal of the American Association for Cancer Education · 2017
    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

5 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.

Nancy L KeatingDivision of General Internal Medicine, Department of Medicine, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts, USA. keating@hcp.med.harvard.edu
A James O'Malley
Joanne M Murabito
Kirsten P Smith
Nicholas A Christakis
Harvard University · USBrigham and Women's Hospital · USHarvard University Press · USNational Heart Lung and Blood Institute · US

Funding

The Spread of Health Behaviors in the Framingham Heart Study Social NetworkP01AG031093 · NIA · YALE UNIVERSITY · PI CHRISTAKIS, NICHOLAS A · 2008 to 2012
$10.7M
Social Network Study of Health Effects in AgingR01AG024448 · NIA · HARVARD UNIVERSITY (MEDICAL SCHOOL) · PI CHRISTAKIS, NICHOLAS A · 2004 to 2006
$2.0M
THE FRAMINGHAM HEART STUDY-N01HC25195-268025195-268025195N01HC025195 · HC · TRUSTEES OF BOSTON UNIVERSITY · PI WOLF, PHILIP A · 2002 to 2006
–
NHLBI NIH HHS N01 HC025195NHLBI NIH HHS N01-HC-25195NIA NIH HHS P01 AG-031093NIA NIH HHS P01 AG031093NIA NIH HHS R01 AG024448NIA NIH HHS R-01 AG-24448
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundSocial networks may influence screening behaviors. We assessed whether screening for breast, prostate, or colorectal cancer is influenced by the actual screening behaviors of siblings, friends, spouses, and coworkers.

methodsWe conducted an observational study using Framingham Heart Study data to assess screening for eligible individuals during the late 1990s. We used logistic regression to determine whether the probability of screening for breast, prostate, or colorectal cancer was influenced by the proportion of siblings, friends, and coworkers who had the same screening, as well as spouse's screening for colorectal cancer, adjusting for other factors that might influence screening rates.

resultsAmong 1660 women aged 41-70 years, 71.7% reported mammography in the previous year; among 1217 men aged 51-70 years, 43.3% reported prostate-specific antigen testing in the previous year; and among 1426 men and women aged 51-80 years, 46.9% reported stool blood testing and/or sigmoidoscopy in the previous year. An increasing proportion of sisters who had mammography in the previous year was associated with mammography screening in the ego (odds ratio [OR], 1.034; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.000-1.065 for each 10% increase). A spouse with recent screening was associated with more colorectal cancer screening (OR, 1.65; 95% CI, 1.39-1.98 vs unmarried). Otherwise, screening behaviors of siblings, friends, and coworkers were not associated with screening in the ego.

conclusionsAside from a slight increase in breast cancer screening among women whose sisters were screened and colorectal cancer screening if spouses were screened, the screening behavior of siblings, friends, or coworkers did not influence cancer screening behaviors.

Indexed as

Early Detection of CancerHealth BehaviorSocial SupportAdultAgedBreast NeoplasmsColorectal NeoplasmsFemaleFriendsHumansMaleMass ScreeningMiddle AgedProstatic NeoplasmsSiblings

Identifiers

PMID21264828
PMCPMC3119780
OpenAlexW2077400451

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
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.