Trial reportCancer2015
Randomized trial to increase colorectal cancer screening in an ethnically diverse sample of first-degree relatives.
Trial report in Cancer, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers, 4 of them syntheses 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
12 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Mapping psychosocial interventions in familial colorectal cancer: a rapid systematic review.BMC cancer · 2022Pooled it
- Examining aspects of successful community-based programs promoting cancer screening uptake to reduce cancer health disparity: A systematic review.Preventive medicine · 2020Pooled it
- Interventions for increasing colorectal cancer screening uptake among African-American men: A systematic review and meta-analysis.PloS one · 2020Pooled it
- Interventions Promoting Colorectal Cancer Screening Among Latino Men: A Systematic Review.Preventing chronic disease · 2018Pooled it
- Tobacco Use, Experiences and Knowledge Among Indigenous Mexican Agricultural Workers.Journal of immigrant and minority health · 2026Article
- Cancer-Specific health equity metrics in the United States of America: A scoping review.Cancer medicine · 2023Article
- Factors associated with colorectal cancer screening in a peer-counseling intervention study in partnership with African American churches.Preventive medicine reports · 2020Article
- Racial and Ethnic Disparities in Colorectal Cancer Screening Pose Persistent Challenges to Health Equity.Clinical gastroenterology and hepatology : the official clinical practice journal of the American Gastroenterological Association · 2020Article
- Promoting guideline-based cancer genetic risk assessment for hereditary breast and ovarian cancer in ethnically and geographically diverse cancer survivors: Rationale and design of a 3-arm randomized controlled trial.Contemporary clinical trials · 2018Article
- Epigenetic Biomarkers in Colorectal Cancer.Molecular diagnosis & therapy · 2017Review
- Review
- Obesity, physical activity, and dietary behaviors in an ethnically-diverse sample of cancer survivors with early onset disease.Journal of psychosocial oncologyArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundEthnic minorities, especially African Americans and Latinos, bear a disproportionate burden of colorectal cancer (CRC), as reflected in incidence, cancer stage, and mortality statistics. In all ethnic groups, first-degree relatives (FDRs) of CRC cases are at an elevated disease risk. However, underuse of CRC screening persists and is particularly evident among minority groups. The current study tested a stepped intervention to increase CRC screening among an ethnically diverse sample of FDRs of CRC cases.
methodsA statewide cancer registry was used to recruit CRC cases and through them their FDRs. Relatives who were not current on CRC screening were randomized to intervention or usual-care control arms. The stepped intervention consisted of ethnically targeted and individually tailored print materials followed by telephone counseling for those unscreened at 6 months.
resultsThe study sample of 1280 individuals consisted of 403 Latino, 284 African American, 242 Asian, and 351 white FDRs. Statistically significant effects were observed for the cumulative print plus telephone intervention at 12 months (26% in the intervention vs 18% in the control group) and the print intervention alone at 6 months (15% in the intervention vs 10% in the control group). The effect of the print intervention alone versus the cumulative interventions was not statistically significantly different. Stratified analyses indicated that the intervention was effective among white, Latino, and Asian individuals, but not among African-Americans.
conclusionsOverall, the intervention was effective in increasing screening rates. Oversampling racial/ethnic minorities allowed for the examination of effects within subgroups, revealing no effect among African American individuals. This finding illustrates the importance of including sufficient numbers of participants from diverse ethnic subgroups in intervention research to enable such stratified analyses.
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.