Evidence map›Paper›PMID 21744967›Full record

Trial reportHealth psychology : official journal of the Division of Health Psychology, American Psychological Association2011

Changes in risk perceptions in relation to self-reported colorectal cancer screening among first-degree relatives of colorectal cancer cases enrolled in a randomized trial.

Beth A Glenn, Alison K Herrmann, Catherine M Crespi, Cynthia M Mojica, L Cindy Chang, Annette E Maxwell, Roshan Bastani

Abstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in Health psychology : official journal of the Division of Health Psychology, American Psychological Association, 2011. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 15 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
15citing papers in PubMed, 3 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

15 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Trial
  5. Trial
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Sun protection practices and sun exposure among children with a parental history of melanoma.Cancer epidemiology, biomarkers & prevention : a publication of the American Association for Cancer Research, cosponsored by the American Society of Preventive Oncology · 2015
    Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. 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

7 authors.

Beth A GlennDivision of Cancer Prevention & Control Research, School of Public Health & Jonsson Comprehensive Cancer Center, University of California, Los Angeles, CA 90095-6900, USA. bglenn@ucla.edu
Alison K Herrmann
Catherine M Crespi
Cynthia M Mojica
L Cindy Chang
Annette E Maxwell
Roshan Bastani

Funding

COLORECTAL CANCER SCREENING IN HIGH RISK INDIVIDUALSR01CA075367 · NCI · UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA LOS ANGELES · PI BASTANI, ROSHAN · 1998 to 2001
$1.1M
NCI NIH HHS R01 CA075367
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveThis secondary data analysis was conducted to evaluate the applicability of the Risk Reappraisal Hypothesis, which has been proposed to explain the influence of performing a health behavior on perceived risk. Data were collected in the context of a randomized trial, which found that an individually tailored, multicomponent intervention was successful in increasing colorectal cancer (CRC) screening among first-degree relatives of CRC cases.

methodThe ethnically diverse study sample (N = 841; 29% Latino, 21% African American, 20% Asian) consisted of adult siblings and children (40-80 years) of CRC cases, identified through the California Cancer Registry. Data were collected at baseline and at 6- and 12-month follow-up. Changes in self-reported risk perception (perceived likelihood of developing CRC) were examined over the study period in relation to study condition and screening status.

resultsGreater increases in perceived risk were observed among intervention versus control-group participants over the study period, but increases were limited to intervention participants who had not been screened. We also examined trajectories of perceived risk in relation to timing of screening receipt (e.g., before 6 months, 6-12 months, never). Continued upward shifts in risk were observed during the study period among intervention participants not screened during the study. In contrast, participants screened by 6 months displayed a reduction or leveling off in perceived risk between 6- and 12-month follow-up.

conclusionResults provide support for the applicability of the Risk Reappraisal Hypothesis within a high-risk sample enrolled in a CRC screening promotion trial. Future research is needed to explore the impact of short-term risk reductions on future CRC screening behavior.

Indexed as

Health BehaviorAdultAdult ChildrenAgedAged, 80 and overCaliforniaColorectal NeoplasmsEarly Detection of CancerFemaleHealth Knowledge, Attitudes, PracticeHumansMaleMiddle AgedRegistriesRisk AssessmentSelf-Assessment

Identifiers

PMID21744967
PMCPMC3201806

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.