ArticleJournal of women's health (2002)2016
Opportunities to Expand Colorectal Cancer Screening Participation.
Article in Journal of women's health (2002), 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 11 citations in OpenAlex.
- Randomized Trial of Facilitated Adherence to Screening Colonoscopy vs Sequential Fecal-Based Blood Test.Gastroenterology · 2023Trial
- Effectiveness of health promotion interventions to increase faecal occult blood test uptake rates among older adults with an average-risk of colorectal cancer: A systematic review and meta-analysis.Asia-Pacific journal of oncology nursing · 2025Article
- Qualitative Analysis of Colorectal Cancer Screening in Rural Nebraska.Journal of cancer education : the official journal of the American Association for Cancer Education · 2023Article
- Knowledge, Attitudes, and Barriers (KABs) of Regarding Colorectal Cancer Screening among the Population of the Republic of Kazakhstan.Asian Pacific journal of cancer prevention : APJCP · 2022Article
- Awareness of Colorectal Cancer and Attitudes Towards Its Screening Guidelines in Lebanon.Annals of global health · 2019Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's Screen for Life: National Colorectal Cancer Action Campaign has operated continuously since 1999 to promote colorectal cancer screening. The campaign's most recent formative research cycle was conducted in 2015 and included 16 focus groups in four United States cities with adults aged 50-75 years who had not received colorectal cancer screening as recommended. The most common reason for screening nonparticipation was aversion to some aspect of colonoscopy, such as preparation, the invasive nature of the test, or the possibility of complications. Other reasons for screening nonparticipation were absence of symptoms, lack of screening awareness/provider recommendation, and lack of family history. Screening promotion messages that resonated with participants included the following: multiple screening tests are available; colorectal cancer may not cause symptoms; screening should begin at age 50; and most cases of colorectal cancer occur in individuals with no family history of the disease. Efforts to increase colorectal cancer screening participation may be supported by disseminating messages that counter common concerns about screening. Raising awareness of the range of colorectal cancer screening options may be especially critical given that many unscreened individuals were unwilling to undergo a colonoscopy.
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.