Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26504782›Full record

ArticleBioMed research international2015

Social Cognitive Mediators of Sociodemographic Differences in Colorectal Cancer Screening Uptake.

Siu Hing Lo, Jo Waller, Charlotte Vrinten, Lindsay Kobayashi, Christian von Wagner

Abstract readMulticenter Study
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in BioMed research international, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 18 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
18citing papers in PubMed
–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

18 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Trial
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Attitudes towards faecal immunochemical testing in patients at increased risk of colorectal cancer: an online survey of GPs in England.The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners · 2018
    Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Decision-making and socioeconomic disparities in colonoscopy screening in African Americans.Health psychology : official journal of the Division of Health Psychology, American Psychological Association · 2018
    Article
  18. 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

5 authors.

Siu Hing LoDepartment of Epidemiology and Public Health, Health Behaviour Research Centre, University College London, Gower Street, London WC1E 6BT, UK.
Jo WallerDepartment of Epidemiology and Public Health, Health Behaviour Research Centre, University College London, Gower Street, London WC1E 6BT, UK.
Charlotte VrintenDepartment of Epidemiology and Public Health, Health Behaviour Research Centre, University College London, Gower Street, London WC1E 6BT, UK.
Lindsay KobayashiDepartment of Epidemiology and Public Health, Health Behaviour Research Centre, University College London, Gower Street, London WC1E 6BT, UK.
Christian von WagnerDepartment of Epidemiology and Public Health, Health Behaviour Research Centre, University College London, Gower Street, London WC1E 6BT, UK.

Funding

Cancer Research UK 14134Cancer Research UK C1418/A14134CIHR DFSA 201210
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThis study examined if and how sociodemographic differences in colorectal cancer (CRC) screening uptake can be explained by social cognitive factors.

methodsFace-to-face interviews were conducted with individuals aged 60-70 years (n = 1309) living in England as part of a population-based omnibus survey.

resultsThere were differences in screening uptake by SES, marital status, ethnicity, and age but not by gender. Perceived barriers (stand. b = -0.40, p < 0.001), social norms (stand. b = 0.33, p < 0.001), and screening knowledge (stand. b = 0.17, p < 0.001) had independent associations with uptake. SES differences in uptake were mediated through knowledge, social norms, and perceived barriers. Ethnic differences were mediated through knowledge. Differences in uptake by marital status were primarily mediated through social norms and to a lesser extent through knowledge. Age differences were largely unmediated, except for a small mediated effect via social norms.

conclusionsSociodemographic differences in CRC screening uptake were largely mediated through social cognitive factors. Impact. Our findings suggest that multifaceted interventions might be needed to reduce socioeconomic inequalities. Ethnic differences might be reduced through improved screening knowledge. Normative interventions could emphasise screening as an activity endorsed by important others outside the immediate family to appeal to a wider audience.

Indexed as

Social ClassAgedAge DistributionAttitude to HealthColorectal NeoplasmsEarly Detection of CancerEnglandFemaleHealth LiteracyHumansMaleMiddle AgedSex Distribution

Identifiers

PMID26504782
PMCPMC4609345

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.