Trial reportJournal of nutrition education and behavior
Differences in response to a dietary intervention between the general population and first-degree relatives of colorectal cancer patients.
Trial report in Journal of nutrition education and behavior. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Mapping psychosocial interventions in familial colorectal cancer: a rapid systematic review.BMC cancer · 2022Pooled it
- Genoprotective activities of plant natural substances in cancer and chemopreventive strategies in the context of 3P medicine.The EPMA journal · 2020Review
- Feasibility and Acceptability of a Mobile-Assisted Screening and Brief Intervention for Multiple Health Behaviors in Medical Settings.Journal of primary care & community healthArticle
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.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveTo determine whether response to a dietary intervention is greater among people with family history of colorectal cancer (CRC) compared with a general population.
designCohort study examining participants from 2 related studies.
settingRural Virginia.
participantsSeventy people with first-degree relatives with CRC and 113 participants from the intervention arm of a trial in the general population.
interventionBoth studies implemented a low-intensity intervention delivered via telephone and mail, including low-literacy self-help booklets and personalized dietary feedback.
main outcome measuresFat, fiber, and fruit and vegetable behavior. ANALYSIS: Propensity score matching controlled for confounders. Mixed-model ANOVAs compared samples; mediation by perceived cancer risk was assessed.
resultsParticipants in both groups significantly improved fat, fiber, and fruit and vegetable behavior at 1-month follow-up; there was significantly greater improvement in the general population sample. Cancer risk perception did not mediate the relationship between study sample and dietary change. CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS: Contrary to expectations, first-degree relatives of CRC patients did not respond better to a dietary intervention than the general population, nor was risk perception related to dietary change. Given the role of diet in CRC risk, additional research should investigate targeted strategies to improve dietary intakes of people at higher cancer risk.
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.