Trial reportJAMA internal medicine2013
A randomized comparison of print and web communication on colorectal cancer screening.
Trial report in JAMA internal medicine, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT00459030 (Two Delivery Channels to Improve CRC Screening), which is not on this map. Cited by 11 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled 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.
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.
Two Delivery Channels to Improve CRC Screening
Who cites it
11 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Evaluation of Interventions Intended to Increase Colorectal Cancer Screening Rates in the United States: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.JAMA internal medicine · 2018Pooled it
- Social determinants of health and US cancer screening interventions: A systematic review.CA: a cancer journal for cliniciansPooled it
- Evaluation of an educational telephone intervention strategy to improve non-screening colonoscopy attendance: A randomized controlled trial.World journal of gastroenterology · 2020Trial
- Web-Based Study for Improving Mammography Among Korean American Women.Journal of cancer education : the official journal of the American Association for Cancer Education · 2017Trial
- Sociopsychological tailoring to address colorectal cancer screening disparities: a randomized controlled trial.Annals of family medicineTrial
- Article
- Screening for colorectal cancer: the role of the primary care physician.European journal of gastroenterology & hepatology · 2017Review
- Comparative effectiveness of two outreach strategies for cervical cancer screening.Preventive medicine · 2016Article
- Socio-psychological factors in the Expanded Health Belief Model and subsequent colorectal cancer screening.Patient education and counseling · 2015Observational
- Public health and cooperative group partnership: a colorectal cancer intervention.Seminars in oncology nursing · 2014Article
- Evaluation of a Mammography Screening Decision Aid for Women Aged 75 and Older: Protocol for a Cluster-randomized Controlled Trial.Journal of clinical trialsArticle
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundNew methods to enhance colorectal cancer (CRC) screening rates are needed. The web offers novel possibilities to educate patients and to improve health behaviors, such as cancer screening. Evidence supports the efficacy of health communications that are targeted and tailored to improve the uptake of recommendations.
methodsWe identified unscreened women at average risk for CRC from the scheduling databases of obstetrics and gynecology practices in 2 large health care systems. Participants consented to a randomized controlled trial that compared CRC screening uptake after receipt of CRC screening information delivered via the web or in print form. Participants could also be assigned to a control (usual care) group. Women in the interventional arms received tailored information in a high- or low-monitoring Cognitive Social Information Processing model-defined attentional style. The primary outcome was CRC screening participation at 4 months.
resultsA total of 904 women were randomized to the interventional or control group. At 4 months, CRC screening uptake was not significantly different in the web (12.2%), print (12.0%), or control (12.9%) group. Attentional style had no effect on screening uptake for any group. Some baseline participant factors were associated with greater screening, including higher income (P = .03), stage of change (P < .001), and physician recommendation to screen (P < .001).
conclusionsA web-based educational intervention was no more effective than a print-based one or control (no educational intervention) in increasing CRC screening rates in women at average risk of CRC. Risk messages tailored to attentional style had no effect on screening uptake. In average-risk populations, use of the Internet for health communication without additional enhancement is unlikely to improve screening participation.
trial registrationclinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT00459030.
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.