ArticleCancer2012
Does a standard measure of self-reported physical disability correlate with clinician perception of impairment related to cancer screening?
Article in Cancer, 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Pregnancy Decision-Making Among Women With Physical Disabilities: Cross-Sectional Survey Study.BJOG : an international journal of obstetrics and gynaecology · 2026Article
- A Systematic Review to Evaluate the Barriers to Breast Cancer Screening in Women with Disability.Journal of clinical medicine · 2024Review
- Development of a new pregnancy informational and decisional needs survey for women with physical disabilities.Disability and health journal · 2021Article
- Reproductive Health in Women with Physical Disability: A Conceptual Framework for the Development of New Patient-Reported Outcome Measures.Journal of women's health (2002) · 2020Article
- Trends in colorectal cancer screening over time for persons with and without chronic disability.Disability and health journal · 2016Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundAdults with physical disabilities are less likely than others to receive cancer screening. It is not known, however, whether commonly used measures assess elements of physical ability necessary for successful screening. The objective of this exploratory study was to determine whether patients who reported limitations in activities of daily living (ADLs) or instrumental ADLs (IADLs) are perceived by their primary care clinicians to have physical limitations that may impede cancer screening.
methodsPatients at 2 rural primary care clinics were surveyed about ADLs and IADLs and about their up-to-date status for breast, cervical, and/or colorectal cancer screening. Clinicians and office staff were asked whether they believed each patient had a physical limitation that might impede screening. The agreement between patient and clinician assessments was evaluated.
resultsClinicians believed that 43% of patients with severe disability (ADLs) and 30% of patients with moderate disability (IADLs) had limitations that might affect screening. Agreement between patient and clinician assessments was low according to the kappa statistic (κ = 0.355), but had a high percentage of negative agreement (92.3%) and a low percentage of positive agreement (42.7%). Patients with ADL/IADL-related disability were less likely than nondisabled patients to be current for cervical and breast cancer screening. Patients who were viewed by clinicians as having limitations relevant for screening were less likely to be current for cervical cancer screening.
conclusionsThese results indicate that a common measure of general disability may not capture all factors relevant for cancer screening. An instrument designed to include these factors may help identify and accommodate patients who have disabilities that may impede screening.
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.