Evidence map›Paper›PMID 22476985›Full record

Trial reportJournal of general internal medicine2012

Patient-provider discussions about colorectal cancer screening: who initiates elements of informed decision making?

Mira L Katz, Ben Broder-Oldach, James L Fisher, Justin King, Kathy Eubanks, Kelly Fleming, Electra D Paskett

Registry-linked trialAbstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in Journal of general internal medicine, 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT03843957 (Effectiveness and Implementation of mPATH-CRC), which is not on this map. Cited by 12 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
12citing papers in PubMed
–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.

NCT03843957 nacompletednot on this mapstarted 2019, after this paper: background citation

Effectiveness and Implementation of mPATH-CRC: a Mobile Health System for Colorectal Cancer Screening

TypeinterventionalSponsorWake Forest University Health SciencesRan2019 to 2023Enrolled77,145ConditionsColorectal Cancer, Cancer, Rectum Cancer, Colon CancerArmsmPATH-CRC, mPATH-Checkin, "high touch" Implementation strategy, "low touch" Implementation Strategy
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

12 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Trial
  3. Trial
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Risk assessment and clinical decision making for colorectal cancer screening.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2015
    Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Cost-containment redux: time for physicians to engage.Journal of general internal medicine · 2012
    Article
  12. 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.

Mira L KatzCollege of Public Health, The Ohio State University, College of Public Health, Columbus, OH 43201, USA. mira.katz@osumc.edu
Ben Broder-Oldach
James L Fisher
Justin King
Kathy Eubanks
Kelly Fleming
Electra D Paskett

Funding

Translational Therapeutics Research Program (TT)P30CA016058 · NCI · OHIO STATE UNIVERSITY · PI Tasleem J Padamsee · 1985 to 2026
$132.3M
University of Iowa Clinical and Translational Science Program (TL1)UL1RR025755 · NCRR · OHIO STATE UNIVERSITY · PI JACKSON, REBECCA D · 2008 to 2011
$26.3M
The Ohio State University Center for Clinical and Translational Science (UL1)UL1TR000090 · NCATS · OHIO STATE UNIVERSITY · PI JACKSON, REBECCA D · 2012 to 2013
$7.9M
Patient Activation To Increase Colon Cancer ScreeningK07CA107079 · NCI · OHIO STATE UNIVERSITY · PI KATZ, MIRA L · 2005 to 2009
$783k
NCATS NIH HHS UL1 TR000090NCI NIH HHS K07 CA107079NCI NIH HHS P30 CA016058NCI NIH HHS P30 CA16058NCRR NIH HHS UL1 RR025755NCRR NIH HHS UL1RR025755
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundColorectal cancer (CRC) screening rates remain low among low-income minority populations.

objectiveTo evaluate informed decision making (IDM) elements about CRC screening among low-income minority patients.

designObservational data were collected as part of a patient-level randomized controlled trial to improve CRC screening rates. Medical visits (November 2007 to May 2010) were audio-taped and coded for IDM elements about CRC screening. Near the end of the study one provider refused recording of patients' visits (33 of 270 patients). Among all patients in the trial, agreement to be audio taped was 43.5 % (103/237). Evaluable patient (n = 100) visits were assessed for CRC screening discussion occurrence, IDM elements, and who initiated discussion of each IDM element.

participantsPatients were African American (72.2 %), female (63.7 %), with annual household incomes <$20,000 (60.7 %), without health insurance (57.0 %), and limited health literacy (53.7 %). KEY

resultsAlthough CRC screening was mentioned during 48 (48 %) visits, no further discussion about screening occurred in 23 visits (19 times mentioned by the participant with no response from providers). During any visit, the maximum number of IDM elements was five; however, only two visits included five elements. The most common IDM element discussed in addition to the nature of the decision was the assessment of the patient's understanding in 16 (33.3 %) of the visits that included a CRC discussion.

conclusionsA patient activation intervention initiated CRC screening discussions with health care providers; however, limited IDM occurred about CRC screening during medical visits of minority and low-income patients.

Indexed as

Decision MakingProfessional-Patient RelationsColorectal NeoplasmsEarly Detection of CancerFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedNurse PractitionersPatient Care TeamPatient Education as TopicPhysician-Patient Relations

Identifiers

PMID22476985
PMCPMC3514989

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

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.