ArticleBMC public health2013
Gender differences in attitudes impeding colorectal cancer screening.
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 46 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
46 citing papers in PubMed, 100 citations in OpenAlex.
- Assessing Colorectal Cancer Screening Barriers by Two Methods.Journal of cancer education : the official journal of the American Association for Cancer Education · 2018Trial
- Trial
- Sex and gender-oriented colorectal cancer screening: a consensus study from the AIOM- GISEG working group.Frontiers in oncology · 2026Article
- Changes in Colorectal Cancer Screening Modalities Among Insured Individuals.JAMA network open · 2025Article
- Gender and sex differences in colorectal cancer screening, diagnosis and treatment.Clinical & translational oncology : official publication of the Federation of Spanish Oncology Societies and of the National Cancer Institute of Mexico · 2025Review
- The Association Between Health Literacy and Colorectal Cancer Screening: Findings Using a Three-Question Health Literacy Measure.Journal of gastrointestinal cancer · 2025Article
- Cancer screening and its associated factors in hypertensive individuals: new insights from the 2021 STEPs national study in Iran.BMC public health · 2025Article
- Article
- Masculinity and colorectal cancer screening: a cross-sectional study of men attending state fairs in Minnesota and Wisconsin.Annals of behavioral medicine : a publication of the Society of Behavioral Medicine · 2025Article
- Using large language models for extracting stressful life events to assess their impact on preventive colon cancer screening adherence.BMC public health · 2025Article
- Article
- Sex Difference of Colon Adenoma Pathway and Colorectal Carcinogenesis.The world journal of men's health · 2024Review
- Sex Disparities in Rectal Cancer Surgery: An In-Depth Analysis of Surgical Approaches and Outcomes.The world journal of men's health · 2024Review
- Beyond the treatment: The role of race, sex, and education in health trajectories between cancer survivors and noncancer older adults.Journal of geriatric oncology · 2023Article
- Message Framing for Men? Gender Moderated Effects of Culturally Targeted Message Framing on Colorectal Cancer Screening Receptivity among African Americans.Psychology of men & masculinity · 2023Article
- Perceived job demands: a qualitative study of workplace stress in the Iranian healthcare workers (HCWs).BMJ open · 2022Article
- Availability of Financial and Medical Resources for Screening Providers and Its Impact on Cancer Screening Uptake and Intervention Programs.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2022Article
- Barriers and Facilitators to Colorectal Cancer Screening in African-American Men.Digestive diseases and sciences · 2022Article
- Barriers to utilization of three colorectal cancer screening options - Data from a national survey.Preventive medicine reports · 2021Article
- Predictors of CRC Stage at Diagnosis among Male and Female Adults Participating in a Prospective Cohort Study: Findings from Alberta's Tomorrow Project.Current oncology (Toronto, Ont.) · 2021Article
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 at 5 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundColorectal cancer screening (CRCS) is the only type of cancer screening where both genders reduce risks by similar proportions with identical procedures. It is an important context for examining gender differences in disease-prevention, as CRCS significantly reduces mortality via early detection and prevention. In efforts to increase screening adherence, there is increasing acknowledgment that obstructive attitudes prevent CRCS uptake. Precise identification of the gender differences in obstructive attitudes is necessary to improve uptake promotion. This study randomly sampled unscreened, screening - eligible individuals in Ontario, employing semi-structured interviews to elicit key differences in attitudinal obstructions towards colorectal cancer screening with the aim of deriving informative differences useful in planning promotions of screening uptake.
methodsN = 81 participants (49 females, 32 males), 50 years and above, with no prior CRCS, were contacted via random-digit telephone dialing, and consented via phone-mail contact. Altogether, N = 4,459 calls were made to yield N = 85 participants (1.9% response rate) of which N = 4 participants did not complete interviews. All subjects were eligible for free-of-charge CRCS in Ontario, and each was classified, via standard interview by CRCS screening decision-stage. Telephone-based, semi-structured interviews (SSIs) were employed to investigate gender differences in CRCS attitudes, using questions focused on 5 attitudinal domains: 1) Screening experience at the time of interview; 2) Barriers to adherence; 3) Predictors of Adherence; 4) Pain-anxiety experiences related to CRCS; 5) Gender-specific experiences re: CRCS, addressing all three modalities accessible through Ontario's program: a) fecal occult blood testing; b) flexible sigmoidoscopy; c) colonoscopy.
resultsInterview transcript analyses indicated divergent themes related to CRCS for each gender: 1) bodily intrusion, 2) perforation anxiety, and 3) embarrassment for females and; 1) avoidant procrastination with underlying fatalism, 2) unnecessary health care and 3) uncomfortable vulnerability for males. Respondents adopted similar attitudes towards fecal occult blood testing, flexible sigmoidoscopy and colonoscopy, and were comparable in decision stage across tests. Gender differences were neither closely tied to screening stage nor modality. Women had more consistent physician relationships, were more screening-knowledgeable and better able to articulate views on screening. Men reported less consistent physician relationships, were less knowledgeable and kept decision-making processes vague and emotionally distanced (i.e. at 'arm's length').
conclusionsMarked differences were observed in obstructive CRCS attitudes per gender. Females articulated reservations about CRCS-associated distress and males suppressed negative views while ambiguously procrastinating about the task of completing screening. Future interventions could seek to reduce CRCS-related stress (females) and address the need to overcome procrastination (males).
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.