ArticleJournal of cancer education : the official journal of the American Association for Cancer Education2017
Cancer Awareness in Aotearoa New Zealand (CAANZ), 2001 and 2015: Study Protocols.
Article in Journal of cancer education : the official journal of the American Association for Cancer Education, 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.
- Cancer Information Seeking Among Adult New Zealanders: a National Cross-Sectional Study.Journal of cancer education : the official journal of the American Association for Cancer Education · 2018Article
- Cancer Mortality, Early Detection and Treatment among Adult New Zealanders: Changes in Perceptions between 2001 and 2014/5Asian Pacific journal of cancer prevention : APJCP · 2017Article
- Knowledge of Evidence-Based Cancer Risk Factors Remains Low Among New Zealand Adults: Findings from Two Cross-Sectional Studies, 2001 and 2015Asian Pacific journal of cancer prevention : APJCP · 2017Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Population cancer awareness is of interest worldwide, as efforts are made to reduce cancer incidence via changes in risk and protective behaviours. To date, few studies have described changes in awareness over time, despite significant investment in raising awareness about various cancer types and risk behaviours. This paper describes the Cancer Awareness in Aotearoa New Zealand (CAANZ) survey, a cross-sectional telephone survey of adult New Zealanders conducted in 2014/2015 (CAANZ15, n = 1064) and its comparison with a similar 2001 study (CAANZ01, n = 438). Both aimed to describe current cancer awareness among a national sample of New Zealand (NZ) adults, with additional aims for CAANZ15 being to explore emerging issues in information provision and supportive care. Follow-up studies are challenged by changes in communication technologies and, in turn, potential issues in sampling. However, given the value of information about changing awareness, pragmatic steps were taken in CAANZ15 to maximise the response rate and comparability of the surveys. A response rate of 64 % was achieved for both samples. When compared to the adult NZ population, the CAANZ15 sample tended to be older, of higher socioeconomic status and under-representative of people with Pacific, Asian or, to a lesser extent, Māori (the indigenous population of NZ) ethnicity. To compensate for possible disproportionate age-by-ethnicity (Māori/non-Māori) groups in the sample, poststratification weighting was adopted. While caution will need to be exercised in drawing conclusions from comparisons made between these two cohorts, the dearth of such studies means that insights gained should be useful for guiding reflection on future cancer control directions and the generation of new hypotheses.
Indexed as
Identifiers
27216716What 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.