ArticleGastroenterology research and practice2016
Knowledge and Informed Decision-Making about Population-Based Colorectal Cancer Screening Participation in Groups with Low and Adequate Health Literacy.
Article in Gastroenterology research and practice, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 16 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
16 citing papers in PubMed.
- Trial
- Article
- Decision-making on colorectal cancer screening in Curaçao - interviews with the target population.BMC public health · 2023Article
- Strategies for Improving the Utilization of Preventive Care Services: Application of Importance-Performance Gap Analysis Method.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2022Article
- Development and Pilot-Testing of a Patient Decision-Making Aid for Nutrition in Age-Related Macular Degeneration.Patient preference and adherence · 2022Article
- Article
- The Role of Health Literacy in Explaining the Relation between Educational Level and Decision Making about Colorectal Cancer Screening.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2019Article
- Knowledge, attitudes, and worries among different health literacy groups before receiving first invitation to colorectal cancer screening: Cross-sectional study.Preventive medicine reports · 2019Article
- Primary Drivers of Willingness to Continue to Participate in Community-Based Health Screening for Chronic Diseases.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2019Article
- Questionnaire Validation of Colorectal Cancer Literacy Scale among Thai People in Northeastern ThailandAsian Pacific journal of cancer prevention : APJCP · 2019Article
- Gut microbiome identifies risk for colorectal polyps.BMJ open gastroenterology · 2019Article
- Patient-rated importance of key information on screening colonoscopy in Germany: a survey of statutory health insurance members.BMJ open · 2018Article
- Health literacy skills for informed decision making in colorectal cancer screening: Perceptions of screening invitees and experts.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2018Article
- Knowledge of HPV/cervical cancer and acceptability of HPV self-sampling among women living with HIV: A scoping review.Current oncology (Toronto, Ont.) · 2018Article
- Approaching the Hard-to-Reach in Organized Colorectal Cancer Screening: an Overview of Individual, Provider and System Level Coping Strategies.AIMS public health · 2017Review
- A lack of information engagement among colorectal cancer screening non-attenders: cross-sectional survey.BMC public health · 2016Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective. To analyze and compare decision-relevant knowledge, decisional conflict, and informed decision-making about colorectal cancer (CRC) screening participation between potential screening participants with low and adequate health literacy (HL), defined as the skills to access, understand, and apply information to make informed decisions about health. Methods. Survey including 71 individuals with low HL and 70 with adequate HL, all eligible for the Dutch organized CRC screening program. Knowledge, attitude, intention to participate, and decisional conflict were assessed after reading the standard information materials. HL was assessed using the Short Assessment of Health Literacy in Dutch. Informed decision-making was analyzed by the multidimensional measure of informed choice. Results. 64% of the study population had adequate knowledge of CRC and CRC screening (low HL 43/71 (61%), adequate HL 47/70 (67%), p > 0.05). 57% were informed decision-makers (low HL 34/71 (55%), adequate HL 39/70 (58%), p > 0.05). Intention to participate was 89% (low HL 63/71 (89%), adequate HL 63/70 (90%)). Respondents with low HL experienced significantly more decisional conflict (25.8 versus 16.1; p = 0.00). Conclusion. Informed decision-making about CRC screening participation was suboptimal among both individuals with low HL and individuals with adequate HL. Further research is required to develop and implement effective strategies to convey decision-relevant knowledge about CRC screening to all screening invitees.
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.