ArticleThe Journal of community and supportive oncology2015
Joint breast and colorectal cancer screenings in medically underserved women.
Article in The Journal of community and supportive oncology, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 2 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 8 citations in OpenAlex.
- Economics of Multicomponent Interventions to Increase Breast, Cervical, and Colorectal Cancer Screening: A Community Guide Systematic Review.American journal of preventive medicine · 2019Pooled it
- Social determinants of health and US cancer screening interventions: A systematic review.CA: a cancer journal for cliniciansPooled it
- Comparative Effectiveness of 2 Interventions to Increase Breast, Cervical, and Colorectal Cancer Screening Among Women in the Rural US: A Randomized Clinical Trial.JAMA network open · 2023Trial
- An RCT to Increase Breast and Colorectal Cancer Screening.American journal of preventive medicine · 2020Trial
- Primary care colorectal cancer screening correlates with breast cancer screening: implications for colorectal cancer screening improvement interventions.Clinical and translational gastroenterology · 2018Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundBreast and colon cancer screening in rural community clinics is underused.
objectiveTo evaluate the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of alternative interventions designed to promote simultaneous screening for breast and colon cancer in community clinics.
methodsA 3-arm, quasi-experimental evaluation was conducted during May 2008-August 2011 in 8 federally qualified health clinics in predominately rural Louisiana. Baseline screening rates reported by the clinics was <10% for breast cancer (using mammography) and 1%-2% for colon cancer (using the fecal occult blood test [FOBT]). 744 women aged 50 years or older who were eligible for routine mammography and an FOBT were recruited. The combined screening efforts included: enhanced care; health literacy-informed education (education alone), or health literacy-informed education with nurse support (nurse support).
resultsPostintervention screening rates for completing both tests were 28.1% with enhanced care, 23.7% with education alone, and 38.7% with nurse support. After adjusting for age, race, and literacy, patients who received nurse support were 2.21 times more likely to complete both screenings than were those who received the education alone (95% confidence interval [CI], 1.12-4.38; P = .023). The incremental cost per additional woman completing both screenings was $3,987 for education with nurse support over education alone, and $5,987 over enhanced care. LIMITATIONS: There were differences between the 3 arms in sociodemographic characteristics, literacy, and previous screening history. Not all variables that were significantly different between arms were adjusted for, therefore adjustments for key variables (age, race, literacy) were made in statistical analyses. Other limitations related generalizability of results.
conclusionsAlthough joint breast and colon cancer screening rates were increased substantially over existing baseline rates in all 3 arms, the completion rate for both tests was modest. Nurse support and telephone follow-up were most effective. However, it is not likely to be cost effective or affordable in clinics with limited resources.
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.