ArticleThe Australasian medical journal2013
Self-reported bowel screening rates in older Australians and the implications for public health screening programs.
Article in The Australasian medical journal, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 13 citations in OpenAlex.
- A randomised controlled trial of personalised decision support delivered via the internet for bowel cancer screening with a faecal occult blood test: the effects of tailoring of messages according to social cognitive variables on participation.BMC medical informatics and decision making · 2015Trial
- The impact of sample type and procedural attributes on relative acceptability of different colorectal cancer screening regimens.Patient preference and adherence · 2018Article
- General practitioners' perceptions of population based bowel screening and their influence on practice: a qualitative study.BMC family practice · 2017Article
- Article
- Behavioural and demographic predictors of adherence to three consecutive faecal occult blood test screening opportunities: a population study.BMC public health · 2014Article
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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThis paper sought to determine the status of older Australians with regard to Bowel Cancer screening practices occurring outside of the National Bowel Cancer Screening Program.
methodA random sample of N=25,511 urban Australians aged 50 to 74 years received a questionnaire via mail asking questions relating to bowel screening. N=8,762 (34.3%) returned a completed questionnaire.
resultsApproximately 33% (N=2863) of respondents indicated they had undergone colonoscopy in the preceding five years and 21% (N=1840) had used a Faecal Occult Blood Test (FOBT) in the preceding 12 months. Furthermore, 27% (N=497) of those who had completed an FOBT had also undergone colonoscopy.
conclusionA significant proportion of older Australians might be participating in bowel screening practices outside of the national program (NBCSP). Moreover, the proportion of individuals reporting use of both FOBT and endoscopic services is much higher than the positivity rate of FOBT. Large population FOBT screening programs, such as the NBCSP, that do not consider participation in screening external to the program may underestimate true population screening rates.
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.