Evidence map›Paper›PMID 24942822›Full record

SynthesisBMC cancer2014

A grey literature review of special events for promoting cancer screenings.

Cam Escoffery, Kirsten C Rodgers, Michelle C Kegler, Mary Ayala, Erika Pinsker, Regine Haardörfer

Abstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in BMC cancer, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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

7 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Article
  4. Evaluation of Mammogram Parties as an Effective Community Navigation Method.Journal of cancer education : the official journal of the American Association for Cancer Education · 2018
    Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. What do women know about breast cancer prophylaxis and a healthy style of life?Reports of practical oncology and radiotherapy : journal of Greatpoland Cancer Center in Poznan and Polish Society of Radiation Oncology
    Review
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

6 authors.

Cam EscofferyDepartment of Behavioral Sciences and Health Education, Rollins School of Public Health, 1518 Clifton Road, 5th Floor, Atlanta, GA 30322, USA. cescoff@emory.edu.
Kirsten C Rodgers
Michelle C Kegler
Mary Ayala
Erika Pinsker
Regine Haardörfer

Funding

EMORY PREVENTION RESEARCH CENTERU48DP001909 · DP · EMORY UNIVERSITY · PI KEGLER, MICHELLE C · 2009 to 2013
$10.7M
Training ProgramU54CA153603 · NCI · UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA · PI OKUYEMI, KOLAWOLE S · 2010 to 2015
$4.3M
Cancer Related Health Disparities Training ProgramT32CA163184 · NCI · UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA · PI MICHELE L ALLEN, Irina Stepanov · 2016 to 2026
$3.4M
Cancer Related Health Disparities Education and Career Development ProgramR25CA163184 · NCI · UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA · PI FORSTER, JEAN, OKUYEMI, KOLAWOLE S · 2011 to 2015
$2.2M
NCCDPHP CDC HHS U48DP001909NCI NIH HHS R25CA163184NCI NIH HHS T32 CA163184NCI NIH HHS U54 CA153603
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundCancer remains the second leading cause of mortality in the United States. Special events such as health fairs, screening days or cultural festivals are employed often for community education about cancer screening. A previous systematic review of the published literature was conducted in 2012-2013. The purpose of this study was to conduct a grey literature component of special events that promote breast, cervical and colorectal cancer screening in the U.S.

methodsWe conducted a grey literature search of dissertations/theses and conference abstracts. The theses/dissertations were restricted to those: 1) written in English, 2) published from January 1990 to December 2011, 3) examined at least one of the predefined categories of special events, 4) involved cancer screening for breast, cervical, and/or colorectal cancer, 5) included outcome data, and 6) conducted in the United States. A review of U.S. public health and cancer conference abstracts, that were readily available and had focused on at least of 3 cancer types and included outcome data, was conducted. Data were abstracted on the purpose, location, primary audience(s), activities conducted, screening provided onsite or referrals, and evaluation results.

resultsThe grey literature review found 6 special events. The types of events found added to the numbers found in the systematic review, especially receptions or parties and cultural festivals/events. All focused on increasing breast and cervical cancer screening except one that focused on breast cancer only. The reach of these events was targeted at mostly minorities or underserved communities. Common evidence-based strategies were group education, small media, and reducing structural barriers. Group education involved presentations from physicians, lay-health advisors, or cancer survivors, while reducing structural barriers included activities such as providing screening appointment sign-ups at the event or providing transportation for event participants. Mammogram screening rates ranged from 6.8% to 60% and Pap tests from 52% to 70%.

conclusionsFurther evaluation of special events to promote cancer screening will prove their effectiveness. A grey literature review can augment a systematic review of published literature. Additional data about these events through the grey literature offered additional insights into the goals, intervention components and outcomes of interventions.

Indexed as

Early Detection of CancerHealth PromotionBreast NeoplasmsColorectal NeoplasmsFemaleHumansUnited StatesUterine Cervical Neoplasms

Identifiers

PMID24942822
PMCPMC4082274

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.