ArticleHealth promotion practice2014
Analysis of the benefits and costs of a national campaign to promote colorectal cancer screening: CDC's screen for life-national colorectal cancer action campaign.
Article in Health promotion practice, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT03965325 (FOcUs on Colorectal CAncer oUtcomes), which is not on this map. Cited by 8 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.
FOcUs on Colorectal CAncer oUtcomes: Long-Term Study
Who cites it
8 citing papers in PubMed, 19 citations in OpenAlex.
- A Media and Clinic Intervention to Increase Colorectal Cancer Screening in Ohio Appalachia.BioMed research international · 2015Trial
- Myths and Common Misbeliefs About Colorectal Cancer Causation in Palestine: A National Cross-Sectional Study.JCO global oncology · 2024Article
- Using Facebook to promote the uptake of colorectal cancer screening.BMC public health · 2022Article
- Expenditures on Screening Promotion Activities in CDC's Colorectal Cancer Control Program, 2009-2014.Preventing chronic disease · 2019Article
- Ovarian Cancer Knowledge in Women and Providers Following Education with Inside Knowledge Campaign Materials.Journal of cancer education : the official journal of the American Association for Cancer Education · 2018Article
- Estimating health benefits and cost-savings for achieving the Healthy People 2020 objective of reducing invasive colorectal cancer.Preventive medicine · 2018Article
- Process Evaluation of Cancer Prevention Media Campaigns in Appalachian Ohio.Health promotion practice · 2017Article
- Opportunities to Expand Colorectal Cancer Screening Participation.Journal of women's health (2002) · 2016Article
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 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's Screen for Life: National Colorectal Cancer Action Campaign (SFL) is one of the longest running national multimedia campaigns to promote colorectal cancer screening. Since its inception in 1999, no study has quantified the benefits and costs of SFL. We modeled the impact of SFL campaign on screening rates, assuming that the effect size would range from 0.5% to 10% of the unscreened population exposed to the campaign in the last 14 years. Given the estimated benefits of the campaign and costs, we calculated the cost per person screened (2012 dollars). We hypothesize that if 0.5% of the population exposed to campaign messages were screened for colorectal cancer, an additional 251,000 previously unscreened individuals would be screened. The average cost of SFL per person screened would be $2.44. On the other hand, if 10% of the population exposed to campaign messages were screened, an additional 5.01 million individuals would be screened. The average cost per person screened would be $0.12. Results indicate that SFL improves screening rates at a relatively low cost per person screened. The findings in this study provide an important starting point and benchmark for future research efforts to determine the benefits and costs of health communication campaigns to promote cancer prevention.
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.