ArticlePublic health nursing (Boston, Mass.)2013
Validation of self-reported colorectal cancer screening behaviors among Appalachian residents.
Article in Public health nursing (Boston, Mass.), 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 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
14 citing papers in PubMed, 20 citations in OpenAlex.
- The validation of electronic health records in accurately identifying patients eligible for colorectal cancer screening in safety net clinics.Family practice · 2016Trial
- Measuring the validity of survey questions on breast, cervical, colorectal, and lung cancer screening.American journal of epidemiology · 2026Article
- Lower Neighborhood-Level Socioeconomic Status Is Associated with Lower Colorectal Cancer Screening Uptake in the Southern Community Cohort Study.Cancer prevention research (Philadelphia, Pa.) · 2025Article
- Article
- Barriers and recommendations for colorectal cancer screening in Africa.Global health action · 2023Review
- Factors associated with the accurate self-report of cancer screening behaviors among women living in the rural Midwest region of the United States.Preventive medicine reports · 2022Article
- Validity of self-reported mammography uptake in the Belgian health interview survey: selection and reporting bias.European journal of public health · 2021Article
- Association of Race and Socioeconomic Status With Colorectal Cancer Screening, Colorectal Cancer Risk, and Mortality in Southern US Adults.JAMA network open · 2019Article
- Process Evaluation of Cancer Prevention Media Campaigns in Appalachian Ohio.Health promotion practice · 2017Article
- Colorectal cancer prevention: Perspectives of key players from social networks in a low-income rural US region.International journal of qualitative studies on health and well-being · 2016Article
- Adherence to Multiple Cancer Screening Tests among Women Living in Appalachia Ohio.Cancer epidemiology, biomarkers & prevention : a publication of the American Association for Cancer Research, cosponsored by the American Society of Preventive Oncology · 2015Article
- Can we achieve an 80% screening rate for colorectal cancer by 2018 in the United States?Cancer · 2015Article
- The validity of self-reported cancer screening history and the role of social disadvantage in Ontario, Canada.BMC public health · 2015Article
- Correlates of colorectal cancer screening among residents of Ohio Appalachia.Journal of community health · 2013Article
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 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
objectivesWe determined the validity of self-reported colorectal cancer (CRC) screening data provided by Appalachian Ohio residents and identified correlates of providing accurate data. DESIGN AND SAMPLE: We conducted cross-sectional telephone interviews between September 2009 and April 2010. Our study included Appalachian Ohio residents (n = 721) ages 51-75 years. MEASURES: We compared self-reported CRC screening data to medical records to determine validity. Multivariable logistic regression was used to identify correlates of providing accurate self-reported screening data.
resultsAbout 68% of participants self-reported having any CRC screening test within recommended guidelines, whereas medical records indicated that only 49% were within guidelines (concordance = 0.76). Concordance was higher for flexible sigmoidoscopy and fecal occult blood test compared with colonoscopy, although sensitivity and positive predictive value were much higher for colonoscopy. Participants overreported CRC screening behaviors for all tests. Participants who had a regular checkup in the last 2 years (OR = 2.78, 95% CI: 1.15-6.73), or who self-rated their health as good or better (OR = 1.88, 95% CI: 1.12-3.16) were more likely to provide accurate screening data.
conclusionsMany participants failed to provide accurate CRC screening data, and validity varied greatly across individual CRC screening tests. Future CRC screening studies among Appalachian residents should use medical records, if possible, to determine screening histories.
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.