Evidence map›Paper›PMID 23868482›Full record

ArticleCancer2013

Implementing the CDC's Colorectal Cancer Screening Demonstration Program: wisdom from the field.

Elizabeth A Rohan, Jennifer E Boehm, Amy DeGroff, Rebecca Glover-Kudon, Judith Preissle

Open access · bronzeAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Cancer, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 19 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
19citing papers in PubMed
1.9field-weighted citation impact, top 15% 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

19 citing papers in PubMed, 26 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Patient Navigation for Colonoscopy Completion: Results of an RCT.American journal of preventive medicine · 2017
    Trial
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Stakeholder Perspectives on Colonoscopy Navigation and Colorectal Cancer Screening Inequities.Journal of cancer education : the official journal of the American Association for Cancer Education · 2021
    Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Public Health Action Model for Cancer Survivorship.American journal of preventive medicine · 2015
    Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. 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

5 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Elizabeth A RohanDivision of Cancer Prevention and Control, National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, Georgia, USA. erohan@cdc.gov
Jennifer E Boehm
Amy DeGroff
Rebecca Glover-Kudon
Judith Preissle
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention · USNational Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion · USUniversity of Georgia · US

Funding

Intramural CDC HHS CC999999
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundColorectal cancer, as the second leading cause of cancer-related deaths among men and women in the United States, represents an important area for public health intervention. Although colorectal cancer screening can prevent cancer and detect disease early when treatment is most effective, few organized public health screening programs have been implemented and evaluated. From 2005 to 2009, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention funded 5 sites to participate in the Colorectal Cancer Screening Demonstration Program (CRCSDP), which was designed to reach medically underserved populations.

methodsThe authors conducted a longitudinal, multiple case study to analyze program implementation processes. Qualitative methods included interviews with 100 stakeholders, 125 observations, and review of 19 documents. Data were analyzed within and across cases.

resultsSeveral themes related to CRCSDP implementation emerged from the cross-case analysis: the complexity of colorectal cancer screening, the need for teamwork and collaboration, integration of the program into existing systems, the ability of programs to use wisdom at the local level, and the influence of social norms. Although these themes were explored independently from 1 another, interaction across themes was evident.

conclusionsColorectal cancer screening is clinically complex, and its screening methods are not well accepted by the general public; both of these circumstances have implications for program implementation. Using patient navigation, engaging in transdisciplinary teamwork, assimilating new programs into existing clinical settings, and deferring to local-level wisdom together helped to address complexity and enhance program implementation. In addition, public health efforts must confront negative social norms around colorectal cancer screening.

Indexed as

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, U.S.Colorectal NeoplasmsEarly Detection of CancerFemaleHumansLongitudinal StudiesMaleUnited Statescancer screening testscollaborationcolorectal cancer screeningearly detection of cancerinterdisciplinary communicationprogram evaluationprogram implementationqualitative evaluationtaboo

Identifiers

PMID23868482
PMCPMC5389376
OpenAlexW1556859568

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
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.