ArticleHealth promotion practice2011
Process evaluation of recruitment for a cancer screening trial in primary care.
Article in Health promotion practice, 2011. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Patient and physician perspectives on engaging in palliative and healthcare trials: a qualitative descriptive study.BMC palliative care · 2021Trial
- Trial
- Effective recruitment strategies and community-based participatory research: community networks program centers' recruitment in cancer prevention studies.Cancer epidemiology, biomarkers & prevention : a publication of the American Association for Cancer Research, cosponsored by the American Society of Preventive Oncology · 2014Trial
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Many cancer screening studies are conducted in primary care settings, yet few systematically analyze recruitment challenges found at these sites. During a randomized trial promoting colorectal cancer screening, we implemented a process evaluation of recruitment. Recruiters maintained logs that registered the numbers of patients entering the clinic, approached by recruiters, declining to participate, and reasons for nonapproach and nonparticipation. One half of age-eligible patients were approached (n = 1,489), and half of those who met basic eligibility requirements agreed to engage further (n = 527). A small proportion of patients (n = 98) completed the 15-min assessment before their appointment. Major reasons for nonapproach included previous approach, patients called to the exam room, and appearing ill. The major reason for nonparticipation was "not interested"; a few patients did not want to share contact information. Some participants exited the assessment midway because of further ineligibility or time limitations. Best-practice recommendations for recruitment in primary care are discussed.
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.