Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27933460›Full record

Trial reportJournal of cancer education : the official journal of the American Association for Cancer Education2018

Assessing Colorectal Cancer Screening Barriers by Two Methods.

Mira L Katz, Gregory S Young, Barret J Zimmermann, Cathy M Tatum, Electra D Paskett

Abstract readMulticenter StudyRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in Journal of cancer education : the official journal of the American Association for Cancer Education, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed
–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

8 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. 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

5 authors.

Mira L KatzCollege of Public Health, The Ohio State University, Suite 525 1590 North High Street, Columbus, OH, 43201, USA. Mira.Katz@osumc.edu.
Gregory S YoungComprehensive Cancer Center, The Ohio State University, Suite 525 1590 North High Street, Columbus, OH, 43201, USA.
Barret J ZimmermannCollege of Public Health, The Ohio State University, Suite 525 1590 North High Street, Columbus, OH, 43201, USA.
Cathy M TatumComprehensive Cancer Center, The Ohio State University, Suite 525 1590 North High Street, Columbus, OH, 43201, USA.
Electra D PaskettCollege of Public Health, The Ohio State University, Suite 525 1590 North High Street, Columbus, OH, 43201, USA.

Funding

Translational Therapeutics Research Program (TT)P30CA016058 · NCI · OHIO STATE UNIVERSITY · PI Jennifer A. Woyach · 1985 to 2026
$132.3M
Enhancing Colorectal Cancer Screening in Primary CareR01CA116487 · NCI · OHIO STATE UNIVERSITY · PI PASKETT, ELECTRA D. · 2007 to 2011
$2.2M
NCI NIH HHS P30 CA016058NCI NIH HHS R01 CA116487
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Colorectal cancer (CRC) is commonly diagnosed in the USA despite screening tests that have decreased CRC incidence and mortality. Finding the best method to identify patient-level screening barriers is important to improve CRC screening rates. A group-randomized trial was conducted among ten primary-care clinics. Clinics were randomized to a multi-level (clinic, provider, patient) CRC screening intervention or usual care (2007-2013). Subsequent to clinic- and provider-level interventions, a three-step, patient-level intervention was conducted. One step of the patient-level intervention was a CRC screening barriers counseling call conducted by a lay health advisor (LHA). During the call, two methods were used to identify CRC screening barriers. An open-ended question was used first to determine why participants had not completed screening (without probes). Subsequently, the LHA read a list of additional potential screening barriers and asked participants whether each barrier was applicable (with probes). A generalized estimating equation approach was used to compare the two methods. Participants (n = 109) were female (59%), had a mean age of 57.2 years, and were white (67%) or black (31%). Most participants had some college education or a college degree (79%), annual household income $30,000+ (60%), and health insurance (80%). The number of CRC screening barriers increased with probing compared to the open-ended question format (OR 2.10, 95% CI 1.92-2.31; p < 0.01). The ranking of reported CRC screening barriers did not vary by assessment method. However, the methodology used to document CRC screening barriers may influence the content of patient-directed interventions.

Indexed as

AgedAge FactorsColorectal NeoplasmsCounselingEarly Detection of CancerFemaleHealth BehaviorHumansMaleMiddle AgedPatient Education as TopicSex FactorsSocioeconomic FactorsColorectal neoplasmsEarly detection of cancerScreening

Identifiers

PMID27933460
PMCPMC7076560

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.