Observational studyThe American journal of managed care2013
More comprehensive discussion of CRC screening associated with higher screening.
Observational study in The American journal of managed care, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT06182475 (Increasing Equity in Live Donor Kidney Transplantation Through Effective Patient-Provider Communication), 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.
Increasing Equity in Live Donor Kidney Transplantation Through Effective Patient-Provider Communication
Who cites it
11 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 17 citations in OpenAlex.
- Racial and socioeconomic disparities in lung cancer screening in the United States: A systematic review.CA: a cancer journal for clinicians · 2021Pooled it
- Impact of provider-patient communication on cancer screening adherence: A systematic review.Preventive medicine · 2016Pooled it
- The Effectiveness of a Physician-Only and Physician-Patient Intervention on Colorectal Cancer Screening Discussions Between Providers and African American and Latino Patients.Journal of general internal medicine · 2015Trial
- Comparative effectiveness of audit-feedback versus additional physician communication training to improve cancer screening for patients with limited health literacy.Journal of general internal medicine · 2014Trial
- Colorectal Cancer Screening Uptake: Differences Between Rural and Urban Privately-Insured Population.Frontiers in public health · 2020Article
- Lower Adherence: A Description of Colorectal Cancer Screening Barrier Talk.Journal of health communication · 2020Observational
- The impact of travel time on colorectal cancer stage at diagnosis in a privately insured population.BMC health services research · 2019Article
- Providers' Perceptions of Barriers to Optimal Communication With Patients During the Postcolonoscopy Experience.Journal of patient experience · 2018Article
- Epigenetic Biomarkers in Colorectal Cancer.Molecular diagnosis & therapy · 2017Review
- Screening for colorectal cancer: the role of the primary care physician.European journal of gastroenterology & hepatology · 2017Review
- Predicting Colonoscopy Screening Behavior and Future Screening Intentions for African Americans Older than 50 Years.Behavioral medicine (Washington, D.C.)Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
objectivesExamine association of comprehensiveness of colorectal cancer (CRC) screening discussion by primary care physicians (PCPs) with completion of CRC screening. STUDY
designObservational study in Kaiser Permanente Northwest, a group-model health maintenance organization.
methodsA total of 883 participants overdue for CRC screening received an automated telephone call (ATC) between April and June 2009 encouraging CRC screening. Between January and March 2010, participants completed a survey on PCPs' discussion of CRC screening and patient beliefs regarding screening. PRIMARY OUTCOME MEASURE: receipt of CRC screening (assessed by electronic medical record [EMR], 9 months after ATC). Primary independent variable: comprehensiveness of CRC screening discussion by PCPs (7-item scale). Secondary independent variables: perceived benefits of screening (4-item scale assessing respondents' agreement with benefits of timely screening) and primary care utilization (EMR; 9 months after ATC). The independent association of variables with CRC screening was assessed with logistic regression.
resultsAverage scores for comprehensiveness of CRC discussion and perceived benefits were 0.4 (range 0-1) and 4.0 (range 1-5), respectively. A total of 28.2% (n = 249) completed screening, 84% of whom had survey assessments after their screening date. Of screeners, 95.2% completed the fecal immunochemical test. More comprehensive discussion of CRC screening was associated with increased screening (odds ratio [OR] = 1.51, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.03-2.21). Higher perceived benefits (OR = 1.46, 95% CI = 1.13-1.90) and 1 or more PCP visits (OR = 5.82, 95% CI = 3.87-8.74) were also associated with increased screening.
conclusionsMore comprehensive discussion of CRC screening was independently associated with increased CRC screening. Primary care utilization was even more strongly associated with CRC screening, irrespective of discussion of CRC screening.
Indexed as
Identifiers
23725359PMC3891849W1828630024What 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.