Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25084682›Full record

Trial reportAmerican journal of preventive medicine2014

Patient trust in physician influences colorectal cancer screening in low-income patients.

Shivani Gupta, Alison T Brenner, Neda Ratanawongsa, John M Inadomi

Open access · greenAbstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in American journal of preventive medicine, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 55 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
55citing papers in PubMed
2.4field-weighted citation impact, top 10% of its field
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

55 citing papers in PubMed, 96 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Trial
  2. Trial
  3. Trial
  4. Trial
  5. Trial
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Trends in and factors associated with family physician-performed screening colonoscopies in the United States: 2016-2021.The Journal of rural health : official journal of the American Rural Health Association and the National Rural Health Care Association · 2025
    Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Observational
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
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

4 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Shivani GuptaEmory University School of Medicine, Atlanta, Georgia.
Alison T BrennerDepartment of Health Services, University of Washington School of Public Health and Division of Gastroenterology, University of Washington School of Medicine, Seattle, Washington.
Neda RatanawongsaDivision of General Internal Medicine and Center for Vulnerable Populations, University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, California.
John M InadomiDepartment of Health Services, University of Washington School of Public Health and Division of Gastroenterology, University of Washington School of Medicine, Seattle, Washington. Electronic address: jinadomi@medicine.washington.edu.
University of Washington · USEmory University · USUniversity of California, San Francisco · US

Funding

UCSF CLINICAL AND TRANSLATIONAL SCIENCE INSTITUTEUL1RR024131 · NCRR · UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, SAN FRANCISCO · PI JOHNSTON, S. CLAIBORNE · 2006 to 2011
$111.2M
Engaging University of California Stakeholders for Biorespository ResearchUL1TR000004 · NCATS · UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, SAN FRANCISCO · PI GRANDIS, JENNIFER RUBIN · 2012 to 2015
$78.0M
UNC-CH TRAINING PROGRAM IN HEALTH SERVICES RESEARCHT32HS000032 · AHRQ · UNIV OF NORTH CAROLINA CHAPEL HILL · PI HOLMES, GEORGE M · 1989 to 2024
$8.2M
University of Washington Health Services Research Training ProgramT32HS013853 · AHRQ · UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON · PI WEINER, BRYAN J., WILLIAMS, EMILY CATERINA · 2003 to 2024
$6.9M
Improving Gastrointestinal Disease Outcomes in Vulnerable PopulationsK24DK080941 · NIDDK · UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON · PI INADOMI, JOHN MATTHEW · 2008 to 2019
$1.8M
Adherence and the Economics of Colon Cancer ScreeningR01CA106773 · NCI · UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, SAN FRANCISCO · PI YEE, HAL F · 2006 to 2009
$1.4M
Integrating Adherence into a Safety Net EHR Tool to Improve Decision-makingK08HS022561 · AHRQ · UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, SAN FRANCISCO · PI RATANAWONGSA, NEDA · 2014 to 2017
$621k
AHRQ HHS 5T32-HS000032AHRQ HHS 5T32 HS 13853-9AHRQ HHS K08 HS022561AHRQ HHS T32 HS013853NCATS NIH HHS UL1 TR000004NCI NIH HHS R01 CA106773NCI NIH HHS R01CA106773NCRR NIH HHS UL1 RR024131NIDDK NIH HHS K24 DK080941NIDDK NIH HHS K24DK080941
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundColorectal cancer (CRC) screening is effective but underutilized. Although physician recommendation is an important predictor of screening, considerable variation in CRC screening completion remains. PURPOSE: To characterize the influence of patient trust in care providers on CRC screening behavior.

methodsData were collected as part of a cluster-randomized CRC screening intervention trial performed in the San Francisco Community Health Network from March 2007 to January 2012 (analysis, Spring 2012). All study participants received a recommendation to complete CRC screening from their primary care provider (PCP). Included participants were aged 50-79 years, not current with screening, and completed the Wake Forest Trust Scale (WFTS) measuring trust in PCPs and doctors in general. Primary outcome was CRC screening completion (colonoscopy or fecal occult blood testing) within 12 months following enrollment. Multivariable association adjusted for race/ethnicity, language, and other sociodemographics was estimated using generalized estimating equations with logit link and binomial distribution.

resultsWFTS response was 70.3% (701). Most participants (83%) were Latino, Asian, or black. Most had income <$30,000 (96%) and public health insurance (86%). Higher trust in PCP was associated with screening completion (OR=1.11, 95% CI=1.03, 1.17), but trust in doctors was not (OR=1.02, 95% CI=0.82, 1.28). Race, language, and other sociodemographic factors were not significant in multivariable analysis.

conclusionsAfter controlling for traditional factors, trust in PCP remained the only significant driver of CRC screening completion in low-income patients. Interventions to promote CRC screening may be improved by including efforts to enhance patient trust in PCP.

Indexed as

Physician-Patient RelationsAgedColonoscopyColorectal NeoplasmsFemaleHumansMaleMass ScreeningMiddle AgedOccult BloodPatient Acceptance of Health CarePovertySan FranciscoTrust

Identifiers

PMID25084682
PMCPMC4171139
OpenAlexW1998938866

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
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.