ArticleContemporary clinical trials2017
Rationale and design of Mi-CARE: The mile square colorectal cancer screening, awareness and referral and education project.
Article in Contemporary clinical trials, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
- Mi-CARE: Comparing Three Evidence-Based Interventions to Promote Colorectal Cancer Screening among Ethnic Minorities within Three Different Clinical Contexts.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2023Article
- Contemporary use of real-world data for clinical trial conduct in the United States: a scoping review.Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIA · 2021Article
- 'Simple and easy:' providers' and latinos' perceptions of the fecal immunochemical test (FIT) for colorectal cancer screening.Ethnicity & health · 2020Article
- Lung Cancer Screening and Epigenetics in African Americans: The Role of the Socioecological Framework.Frontiers in oncology · 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
9 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
Although colorectal cancer (CRC) is largely preventable through identification of pre-cancerous polyps through various screening modalities, morbidity and mortality rates remain a challenge, especially in African-American, Latino, low-income and uninsured/underinsured patients. Barriers to screening include cost, access to health care facilities, lack of recommendation to screen, and psychosocial factors such as embarrassment, fear of the test, anxiety about testing preparation and fear of a cancer diagnosis. Various intervention approaches to improve CRC screening rates have been developed. However, comparative effectiveness research (CER) to investigate the relative performance of different approaches has been understudied, especially across different real-life practice settings. Assessment of differential efficacy across diverse vulnerable populations is also lacking. The current paper describes the rationale and design for the Mile Square Colorectal Cancer Screening, Awareness and Referral and Education Project (Mi-CARE), which aims to increase CRC screening rates in 3 clinics of a large Federally Qualified Health Center (FQHC) by reducing prominent barriers to screening for low-income, minority and underserved patients. Patients attending these clinics will receive one of three interventions to increase screening uptake: lay patient navigator (LPN)-based navigation, provider level navigation, or mailed birthday CRC screening reminders. The design of our program allows for comparison of the effectiveness of the tailored interventions across sites and patient populations. Data from Mi-CARE may help to inform the dissemination of tailored interventions across FQHCs to reduce health disparities in CRC.
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.