ArticleBMC public health2016
The Dutch public are positive about the colorectal cancer-screening programme, but is this a well-informed opinion?
Article in BMC public health, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT05609396 (Interventions to Improve Bowel Cancer Screening Uptake in Ireland), which is not on this 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.
Interventions to Improve Bowel Cancer Screening Uptake in Ireland: a 2x2 Factorial Trial
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Article
- What benefits and harms are important for a decision about cervical screening? A study of the perspective of different subgroups of women.Patient preference and adherence · 2019Article
- Why are the public so positive about colorectal cancer screening?BMC public health · 2018Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundPopulation-based colorectal cancer (CRC) screening is widely recommended, and members of the eligible screening population seem to be positive about it. However, it is not well known how people outside the eligible screening population view CRC screening, and whether they are supportive of the government providing this. Public opinion may affect people's personal views and their screening decision. The aim of our study was to examine the opinion of the Dutch general public regarding the national CRC screening programme.
methodAn online survey was carried out in a Dutch population sample of adults aged 18 and older, assessing level of support, personal attitude, collective attitude, perceived social norm, awareness, and knowledge regarding the CRC screening programme.
resultsThe response rate was 56% (n = 1679/3000). Generally, the Dutch public are positive about and supportive of the CRC screening programme. We found the biggest proportion of support (86%) when people were asked directly. A smaller proportion (48%) was supportive when people had to choose between other options concerning how the government could possibly deal with CRC. People report knowing more about the benefits of CRC screening than about its possible harms and risks. Many people found it difficult to answer the knowledge questions that asked about numerical information concerning CRC screening correctly.
conclusionPeople were less supportive of the CRC screening programme when having to choose between other options concerning dealing with CRC, and their support may not be based on a full comprehension of what CRC screening entails. Further research is needed to establish what knowledge people need in order to form a well-founded opinion.
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.