Trial reportPsychology & health2013
A pilot evaluation of the efficacy of a couple-tailored print intervention on colorectal cancer screening practices among non-adherent couples.
Trial report in Psychology & health, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers, 1 of them a synthesis 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.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
6 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Health behaviour change interventions for couples: A systematic review.British journal of health psychology · 2017Pooled it
- Communication preference moderates the effect of a tailored intervention to increase colorectal cancer screening among African Americans.Patient education and counseling · 2014Trial
- Relationship between health checkups and cancer screenings of wives and health checkups of their husbands: A cross-sectional study in Japan.Preventive medicine reports · 2024Article
- Sun Safe Partners: A pilot and feasibility trial of a couple-focused intervention to improve sun protection practices.Preventive medicine reports · 2018Article
- The influence of gender on colorectal cancer knowledge, screening intention, perceived risk and worry among African Americans in South Florida.Journal of community health · 2014Article
- Having a Routine Source of Healthcare and Its Impact on Colorectal Cancer Screening Recommendation Compliance.Journal of primary care & community healthArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
The objective of this study was to evaluate the efficacy of a couple-tailored print (CTP) intervention on colorectal cancer screening (CRCS), CRCS intentions, and on knowledge and attitudes among couples in which neither partner is on schedule with regard to CRCS. A total of 168 married couples with both members non-adherent with CRCS were randomly assigned to receive either a CTP pamphlet accompanied by a generic print (GP) pamphlet or a GP pamphlet only. Couples completed measures of CRCS, intentions, relational perspective on CRCS, discussions about CRCS, spouse support for CRCS, spouse influence strategies, CRC knowledge, perceived CRC risk, and CRCS benefits and barriers. Results indicated there was no significant benefit of CTP vs. GP on CRCS, but there was a significant increase in CRCS intentions in CTP compared with GP. There was also a significant increase in relationship perspective on CRCS, a significant increase in husbands' support of their wives' CRCS, and a significant increase in CRCS benefits in CTP. In summary, CTP did not increase CRCS practices but increased intentions and perceived benefits of CRCS as well as improving couples' ability to view CRCS as having benefit for the marital relationship.
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.