Evidence map›Paper›PMID 23514586›Full record

ArticleBMC public health2013

Individual- and provider-level factors associated with colorectal cancer screening in accordance with guideline recommendation: a community-level perspective across varying levels of risk.

Ryan J Courtney, Christine L Paul, Robert W Sanson-Fisher, Finlay A Macrae, Mariko L Carey, John Attia, Mark McEvoy

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC public health, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
1.6field-weighted citation impact, top 17% of its field
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

9 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 17 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Patient Beliefs About Colon Cancer Screening.Journal of cancer education : the official journal of the American Association for Cancer Education · 2016
    Trial
  3. Trial
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Finding medical care for colorectal cancer symptoms: experiences among those facing financial barriers.Health education & behavior : the official publication of the Society for Public Health Education · 2015
    Article
  8. Article
  9. 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 at 4 institutions in 1 country.

Ryan J CourtneyThe Priority Research Centre for Health Behaviour,School of Medicine and Public Health, Faculty of Health, The University of Newcastle, Callaghan, Australia. r.courtney@unsw.edu.au
Christine L Paul
Robert W Sanson-Fisher
Finlay A Macrae
Mariko L Carey
John Attia
Mark McEvoy
University of Newcastle Australia · AUHunter Medical Research Institute · AUNational Centre for Clinical Research on Emerging Drugs · AUThe Royal Melbourne Hospital · AU

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundParticipation rates in colorectal cancer screening (CRC) are low. Relatively little is known about screening uptake across varying levels of risk and across population groups. The purpose of the current study was to identify factors associated with (i) ever receiving colorectal cancer (CRC) testing; (ii) risk-appropriate CRC screening in accordance with guidelines; and (iii) recent colonoscopy screening.

methods1592 at-risk persons (aged 56-88 years) were randomly selected from the Hunter Community Study (HCS), Australia. Participants self-reported family history of CRC was used to quantify risk in accordance with national screening guidelines.

results1117 participants returned a questionnaire; 760 respondents were eligible for screening and analysis. Ever receiving CRC testing was significantly more likely for persons: aged 65-74 years; who had discussed with a doctor their family history of CRC or had ever received screening advice. For respondents "at or slightly above average risk", guideline-appropriate screening was significantly more likely for persons: aged 65-74 years; with higher household income; and who had ever received screening advice. For respondents at "moderately or potentially high risk", guideline-appropriate screening was significantly more likely for persons: with private health insurance and who had discussed their family history of CRC with a doctor. Colonoscopy screening was significantly more likely for persons: who had ever smoked; discussed their family history of CRC with a doctor; or had ever received screening advice.

conclusionsThe level of risk-appropriate screening varied across populations groups. Interventions that target population groups less likely to engage in CRC screening are pivotal for decreasing screening inequalities.

Indexed as

AgedAged, 80 and overAustraliaColorectal NeoplasmsEarly Detection of CancerGenetic Predisposition to DiseaseGuideline AdherenceHumansMiddle AgedPatient CompliancePhysician-Patient RelationsPractice Guidelines as TopicRisk AssessmentRisk FactorsSocioeconomic FactorsSurveys and Questionnaires

Identifiers

PMID23514586
PMCPMC3607924
OpenAlexW2027614077

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.