Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27906448›Full record

Trial reportCancer2017

A randomized controlled trial of a multicomponent, targeted, low-literacy educational intervention compared with a nontargeted intervention to boost colorectal cancer screening with fecal immunochemical testing in community clinics.

Stacy N Davis, Shannon M Christy, Enmanuel A Chavarria, Rania Abdulla, Steven K Sutton, Alyssa R Schmidt, Susan T Vadaparampil, Gwendolyn P Quinn, Vani N Simmons, Chukwudi B Ufondu and 6 more

Open access · bronzeAbstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Trial report in Cancer, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 36 papers, 6 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
36citing papers in PubMed, 6 pooled it
2.2field-weighted citation impact, top 10% of its field
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

36 citing papers in PubMed, 6 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 51 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Interventions for improving health literacy in migrants.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2023
    Pooled it
  3. Health Literacy Interventions in Cancer: a Systematic Review.Journal of cancer education : the official journal of the American Association for Cancer Education · 2021
    Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Trial
  8. Trial
  9. Trial
  10. Trial
  11. Trial
  12. Trial
  13. Trial
  14. Trial
  15. 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

16 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.

Stacy N DavisHealth Education and Behavioral Science, Rutgers School of Public Health, Piscataway, New Jersey.
Shannon M ChristyDivision of Population Science, H. Lee Moffitt Cancer Center and Research Institute, Tampa, Florida.
Enmanuel A ChavarriaDivision of Population Science, H. Lee Moffitt Cancer Center and Research Institute, Tampa, Florida.
Rania AbdullaDivision of Population Science, H. Lee Moffitt Cancer Center and Research Institute, Tampa, Florida.
Steven K SuttonDivision of Population Science, H. Lee Moffitt Cancer Center and Research Institute, Tampa, Florida.
Alyssa R SchmidtDivision of Population Science, H. Lee Moffitt Cancer Center and Research Institute, Tampa, Florida.
Susan T VadaparampilDivision of Population Science, H. Lee Moffitt Cancer Center and Research Institute, Tampa, Florida.
Gwendolyn P QuinnDivision of Population Science, H. Lee Moffitt Cancer Center and Research Institute, Tampa, Florida.
Vani N SimmonsDivision of Population Science, H. Lee Moffitt Cancer Center and Research Institute, Tampa, Florida.
Chukwudi B UfonduFlorida Department of Health, St. Petersburg, Florida.
Chitra RavindraFlorida Department of Health, St. Petersburg, Florida.
Ida SchultzPremier Community HealthCare Group Inc, Dade City, Florida.
Richard G RoetzheimDivision of Population Science, H. Lee Moffitt Cancer Center and Research Institute, Tampa, Florida.
David ShibataDivision of Population Science, H. Lee Moffitt Cancer Center and Research Institute, Tampa, Florida.
Cathy D MeadeDivision of Population Science, H. Lee Moffitt Cancer Center and Research Institute, Tampa, Florida.
Clement K GwedeDivision of Population Science, H. Lee Moffitt Cancer Center and Research Institute, Tampa, Florida.
Moffitt Cancer Center · USUniversity of South Florida · USFlorida Department of Health · USPremier Community Health · US

Funding

TRANSLATIONAL RESEARCHP30CA076292 · NCI · UNIVERSITY OF SOUTH FLORIDA · PI Christine O'Connell · 1998 to 2026
$93.5M
Training ProgramU54CA153509 · NCI · H. LEE MOFFITT CANCER CTR & RES INST · PI GWEDE, CLEMENT K., MEADE, CATHY D. · 2010 to 2015
$4.8M
Behavioral Oncology Education & Career DevelopmentR25CA090314 · NCI · H. LEE MOFFITT CANCER CTR &RES INST · PI BRANDON, THOMAS H · 2003 to 2018
$4.0M
NCI NIH HHS P30 CA076292NCI NIH HHS R25 CA090314NCI NIH HHS U54 CA153509
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe objective of the current study was to improve colorectal cancer (CRC) screening uptake with the fecal immunochemical test (FIT). The current study investigated the differential impact of a multicomponent, targeted, low-literacy educational intervention compared with a standard, nontargeted educational intervention.

methodsPatients aged 50 to 75 years who were of average CRC risk and not up-to-date with CRC screening were recruited from either a federally qualified health center or a primary care community health clinic. Patients were randomized to the intervention condition (targeted photonovella booklet/DVD plus FIT kit) or comparison condition (standard Centers for Disease Control and Prevention brochure plus FIT kit). The main outcome was screening with FIT within 180 days of delivery of the intervention.

resultsOf the 416 participants, 54% were female; the participants were racially and ethnically diverse (66% white, 10% Hispanic, and 28% African American), predominantly of low income, and insured (the majority had county health insurance). Overall, the FIT completion rate was 81%, with 78.1% of participants in the intervention versus 83.5% of those in the comparison condition completing FIT (P =  .17). In multivariate analysis, having health insurance was found to be the primary factor predicting a lack of FIT screening (adjusted odds ratio, 2.10; 95% confidence interval, 1.04-4.26 [P =  .04]).

conclusionsThe multicomponent, targeted, low-literacy materials were not found to be significantly different or more effective in increasing FIT uptake compared with the nontargeted materials. Provision of a FIT test plus education may provide a key impetus to improve the completion of CRC screening. The type of educational material (targeted vs nontargeted) may matter less. The findings of the current study provide a unique opportunity for clinics to adopt FIT and to choose the type of patient education materials based on clinic, provider, and patient preferences. Cancer 2017;123:1390-1400. © 2016 American Cancer Society.

Indexed as

Early Detection of CancerPatient Education as TopicAgedColorectal NeoplasmsFecesFemaleHumansMaleMass ScreeningMiddle AgedOdds RatioRisk Factorscolorectal cancerearly detection of cancerfecal immunochemical testhealth promotionintervention studiesmedically underserved

Identifiers

PMID27906448
PMCPMC5384866
OpenAlexW2559134967

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.