Trial reportClinical and translational science2015
Impact of a Multifaceted Intervention on Promoting Adherence to Screening Colonoscopy Among Persons in HIV Primary Care: A Pilot Study.
Trial report in Clinical and translational science, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Evaluation of Interventions Intended to Increase Colorectal Cancer Screening Rates in the United States: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.JAMA internal medicine · 2018Pooled it
- A Review of Decision Aids for Patients Considering More Than One Type of Invasive Treatment.The Journal of surgical research · 2019Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
HIV-positive patients have lower colon cancer screening rates and are at increased risk for colon adenocarcinoma. We tested a transdisciplinary prevention model to increase provider and patient adherence to screening colonoscopy. Of 1,339 HIV-positive patients with scheduled clinic appointments during the period September to November 2009, we identified 400 records of eligible patients ≥50 years and retrospectively reviewed for screening colonoscopy referral; if never referred, flagged for referral at next visit. Providers referred 43.5% (174/400) patients and 36.2% (63/174) kept appointment. Within 6 months before the study, 337 patients attended clinic and providers referred 18%. Note that 211/226 patients with flagged records attended clinic at least once during the study 6-month period and providers referred (43.6%). The referral rate for flagged records was significantly different from that for the prior 6 months (p < 0.0001). A randomized trial compared the efficacy of patient decision support versus usual care on screening adherence. Among patients randomized to intervention 17 (51.5%) compared to usual care only 16 (48.5%), intervention group showed significant adherence of 70.6% (12/17) versus 29.4% (5/16), (p = 0.024). In addition, intervention patients had good bowel preparation of 76.9% (10/13) versus usual care 23.1% (3/13), (p = 0.05). This transdisciplinary intervention model significantly increased provider and patient screening colonoscopy behavior.
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.