ArticleCancer2013
Implementing the CDC's Colorectal Cancer Screening Demonstration Program: wisdom from the field.
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.
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
19 citing papers in PubMed, 26 citations in OpenAlex.
- Patient Navigation for Colonoscopy Completion: Results of an RCT.American journal of preventive medicine · 2017Trial
- Analytical validation of a scrape-free multitarget stool RNA test for colorectal cancer screening.Practical laboratory medicine · 2025Article
- Promising approaches to support sustained colorectal cancer screening promotion strategies in primary care clinics.Preventive oncology & epidemiology · 2025Article
- A framework to support the progressive implementation of integrated team-based care for the management of COPD: a collective case study.BMC health services research · 2022Article
- Stakeholder Perspectives on Colonoscopy Navigation and Colorectal Cancer Screening Inequities.Journal of cancer education : the official journal of the American Association for Cancer Education · 2021Article
- Framework and Strategies to Eliminate Disparities in Colorectal Cancer Screening Outcomes.Annual review of medicine · 2021Review
- Assessing the implementation of a patient navigation intervention for colonoscopy screening.BMC health services research · 2019Article
- Validation of Quality of Life Instruments for Cancer Patients - Colorectal Cancer (QLICP-CR) in patients with colorectal cancer in Northeast China.BMC cancer · 2018Article
- Participatory Research to Advance Colon Cancer Prevention (PROMPT): Study protocol for a pragmatic trial.Contemporary clinical trials · 2018Article
- Article
- Public Health Action Model for Cancer Survivorship.American journal of preventive medicine · 2015Article
- Implementation challenges and successes of a population-based colorectal cancer screening program: a qualitative study of stakeholder perspectives.Implementation science : IS · 2015Article
- Assessment of training and technical assistance needs of Colorectal Cancer Control Program Grantees in the U.S.BMC public health · 2015Article
- Fecal-based colorectal cancer screening among the uninsured in northern Manhattan.American journal of preventive medicine · 2014Article
- Article
- Article
- Article
- Article
- 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
5 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
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
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.