ArticleHealth promotion practice2017
Process Evaluation of Cancer Prevention Media Campaigns in Appalachian Ohio.
Article in Health promotion practice, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 9 citations in OpenAlex.
- Educational interventions to improve bowel cancer awareness and screening in Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development countries: A scoping review.Preventive medicine reports · 2024Article
- Assessing the use of constructs from the consolidated framework for implementation research in U.S. rural cancer screening promotion programs: a systematic search and scoping review.BMC health services research · 2023Article
- Changes in colorectal cancer knowledge and screening intention among Ohio African American and Appalachian participants: The screen to save initiative.Cancer causes & control : CCC · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
The purpose of this study is to provide process data from campaigns (2009-2010) to improve colorectal cancer (CRC; intervention) screening and fruit and vegetable (F&V; comparison) consumption in 12 Appalachian Ohio counties. County-specific campaigns included one billboard, posters, and articles for local newspapers. Participants in CRC screening counties who reported seeing CRC screening billboards had greater intention to talk to a doctor/nurse about screening in the next 6 months (odds ratio [OR] = 2.92, 95% confidence interval [CI; 1.71, 4.99]) and had twice the odds of talking to a doctor/nurse about screening in the past year (OR = 2.15, 95% CI [1.29, 3.60]) compared to those who did not see the billboards. Participants in F&V counties who reported seeing F&V billboards had twice the odds (OR = 2.27, 95% CI [1.35, 3.84]) of talking to a doctor/nurse in the past year about F&Vs compared to those who did not see the billboards. Participants who reported campaign exposure lived closer to the billboards compared to those who did not report campaign exposure (mean distance in miles from home to billboard: 8.8 vs. 10.9; p < .01). Most participants reported campaign messages were clear and important. Results suggest that partnering with community members to develop campaign materials is important to ensure cultural appropriateness and that exposure to the intervention components may affect health-related outcomes.
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.