Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28344855›Full record

ArticleJournal of community medicine & health education2017

Changes in Colorectal Cancer Screening Knowledge, Behavior, Beliefs, Self-Efficacy, and Barriers among Community Health Clinic Patients after a Health Literacy Intervention.

Connie L Arnold, Alfred Rademaker, Dachao Liu, Terry C Davis

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of community medicine & health education, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 18 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
18citing 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

18 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Repeat Annual Colorectal Cancer Screening in Rural Community Clinics: A Randomized Clinical Trial to Evaluate Outreach Strategies to Sustain Screening.The Journal of rural health : official journal of the American Rural Health Association and the National Rural Health Care Association · 2020
    Trial
  2. Trial
  3. Trial
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Health Literacy Research in Rural Areas.Studies in health technology and informatics · 2020
    Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. 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

4 authors.

Connie L ArnoldDepartment of Medicine, Louisiana State University Health Sciences Center, Shreveport, LA.
Alfred RademakerDepartment of Preventive Medicine and the Robert H. Lurie Comprehensive Cancer Center, Northwestern University, Chicago, IL.
Dachao LiuDepartment of Preventive Medicine and the Robert H. Lurie Comprehensive Cancer Center, Northwestern University, Chicago, IL.
Terry C DavisDepartment of Medicine, Louisiana State University Health Sciences Center, Shreveport, LA.

Funding

Tracking & Evaluation CoreU54GM104940 · NIGMS · LSU PENNINGTON BIOMEDICAL RESEARCH CTR · PI Peter Todd Katzmarzyk · 2012 to 2026
$69.1M
Health Literacy Intervention and Cancer ScreeningR01CA115869 · NCI · LOUISIANA STATE UNIV HSC SHREVEPORT · PI DAVIS, TERRY C · 2007 to 2011
$2.8M
NCI NIH HHS R01 CA115869NIGMS NIH HHS U54 GM104940
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveThe objective in this pre- and post-survey assessment was to compare the effectiveness of a health literacy-directed intervention designed to increase knowledge, beliefs, barriers, self-efficacy and behavior associated with CRC screening with FOBT among patients cared for in predominantly rural community clinics and the change in these characteristics over the first 15 months after enrolling in a study designed to assess screening strategies.

methodsBetween 2008 and 2011, a quasi-experimental intervention was conducted in 8 predominantly rural Federally Qualified Health Centers. Patients were orally administered a 15-minute survey at enrollment by a clinic research assistant (RA) and at 15 months by phone by a central RA. Participants included 428 community clinic patients aged 50-85 (mean 58.5); the majority (79%) were female, 69% were African American, and 54% had limited health literacy.

resultsThere was significant improvement across all groups with the number of patients reporting they had been given information /education on CRC testing (p<.0001), been given an FOBT kit (p<.0001), and completed an FOBT (p<.0001) with significant improvement in having a doctor recommendation in all groups except usual care. Confidence in an FOBT's potential to decrease chances of dying from CRC improved across all groups as well (p<0.002). In addition, patients 'belief that they would get CRC in their lifetime' decreased across all groups post-intervention (p<0.03) as did their worry that they may find out they have CRC (p<0.04).

conclusionOverall these low income FQHC patients who were not up-to-date with screening had heard of CRC screening, had positive attitudes toward screening and wanted to know if they had cancer. Results demonstrate the value of giving patients a recommendation and a kit; patients in all groups reported significant increases at 15 months in completing CRC screening (>83%) as confirmed by study records.

Indexed as

colorectal cancer screening knowledge attitudes and behavior

Identifiers

PMID28344855
PMCPMC5362257

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.