Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27864808›Full record

ArticleJournal of racial and ethnic health disparities2016

Latina and Black/African American Women's Perspectives on Cancer Screening and Cancer Screening Reminders.

Susan Brandzel, Eva Chang, Leah Tuzzio, Camille Campbell, Nora Coronado, Erin J Aiello Bowles, Susan Carol Bradford, Diana S M Buist

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of racial and ethnic health disparities, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 20 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
20citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

20 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Variation in Cervical Cancer Screening Preferences among Medically Underserved Individuals in the United States: A Systematic Review.Cancer epidemiology, biomarkers & prevention : a publication of the American Association for Cancer Research, cosponsored by the American Society of Preventive Oncology · 2020
    Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Discussions of miscarriage and preterm births on Twitter.Paediatric and perinatal epidemiology · 2020
    Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

8 authors.

Susan BrandzelGroup Health Research Institute, 1730 Minor Ave, Suite 1600, Seattle, WA, 98101, USA.
Eva ChangRTI International, 307 Waverley Oaks Rd #101, Waltham, MA, 02452, USA.
Leah TuzzioGroup Health Research Institute, 1730 Minor Ave, Suite 1600, Seattle, WA, 98101, USA.
Camille CampbellSwedish Cancer Institute, 500 17th Ave, Seattle, WA, 98122, USA.
Nora CoronadoUniversity of Washington, 1959 NE Pacific St., Seattle, WA, 98195, USA.
Erin J Aiello BowlesGroup Health Research Institute, 1730 Minor Ave, Suite 1600, Seattle, WA, 98101, USA.
Susan Carol BradfordGroup Health Cooperative, Department of Clinical Improvement and Prevention, 201 16th Ave E, Seattle, WA, 98112, USA.
Diana S M BuistGroup Health Research Institute, 1730 Minor Ave, Suite 1600, Seattle, WA, 98101, USA. buist.d@ghc.org.

Funding

Risk-based Imaging Strategies to Improve Breast Cancer Surveillance OutcomesP01CA154292 · NCI · UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA AT DAVIS · PI Diana L Miglioretti · 2011 to 2026
$52.9M
IMPROVING THE QUALITY OF MAMMOGRAPHIC INTERPRETATIONU01CA063731 · NCI · KAISER FOUNDATION HEALTH PLAN OF WASHINGTON · PI BUIST, DIANA SM · 1994 to 2011
$6.7M
NCI NIH HHS P01 CA154292NCI NIH HHS U01 CA063731
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionRacial and ethnic disparities continue to exist in cancer screening rates, especially among US Latina and Black/African American populations. We conducted six focus groups among 41 women from these communities in order to better understand their preferences about cancer screening reminders and the motivators and deterrents they face in obtaining recommended breast, cervical, and colon cancer screening.

methodsUsing self-reported patient race/ethnicity from electronic medical records of a large, integrated health care system in Seattle, we recruited women ages 30-60 to participate in one of five 2-hour focus groups. Using verbatim transcripts from these discussions, we conducted a qualitative analysis to identify common themes.

resultsThe focus group participants were primarily strong endorsers and utilizers of recommended breast, cervical, and colon cancer screening services. Insurance and belief in preventive care were the most common motivators that they cited in obtaining cancer screening. However, they still reported multiple barriers to getting recommended cancer screening for themselves and community members, including lack of time, conflicting information about screening intervals, distrust in the health care system, and a lack of understanding of the benefits of preventive care.

conclusionsEfforts to improve understanding about the benefits of cancer screening, clarify cancer screening guideline recommendations, increase cultural competency among health care professionals, and expand the times and locations where cancer screening is available are all options that may improve cancer screening rates among Latinas and Black/African American women.

Indexed as

Black/African AmericanCancer screeningDisparitiesLatinaReminders

Identifiers

PMID27864808
PMCPMC5436953

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.