ArticleCancer2017
Increasing colonoscopy screening in disparate populations: Results from an evaluation of patient navigation in the New Hampshire Colorectal Cancer Screening Program.
Article in Cancer, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 50 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
50 citing papers in PubMed, 64 citations in OpenAlex.
- Recruiting Rural Patients for Clinical Research: Lessons From a Colorectal Cancer Screening Trial.The Journal of rural health : official journal of the American Rural Health Association and the National Rural Health Care Association · 2026Trial
- Time to Follow-Up Colonoscopy After Positive Fecal Immunochemical Test with Centralized Patient Navigation: A Randomized Clinical Trial.Journal of general internal medicine · 2026Trial
- Implementing a successful patient navigation program for follow-up colonoscopy: Lessons from the PRECISE study.PloS one · 2026Trial
- Patient Navigation to Improve Colonoscopy Completion After an Abnormal Stool Test Result : A Randomized Controlled Trial.Annals of internal medicine · 2025Trial
- Mailed Outreach and Patient Navigation for Colorectal Cancer Screening Among Rural Medicaid Enrollees: A Cluster Randomized Clinical Trial.JAMA network open · 2025Trial
- Effectiveness of behavior change techniques to address barriers to follow-up colonoscopy: results from an online survey and randomized factorial experiment.Annals of behavioral medicine : a publication of the Society of Behavioral Medicine · 2025Trial
- Randomized Trial of Facilitated Adherence to Screening Colonoscopy vs Sequential Fecal-Based Blood Test.Gastroenterology · 2023Trial
- Precision Patient Navigation to Improve Rates of Follow-up Colonoscopy, An Individual Randomized Effectiveness Trial.Cancer epidemiology, biomarkers & prevention : a publication of the American Association for Cancer Research, cosponsored by the American Society of Preventive Oncology · 2021Trial
- Trial
- Rates and Timing of Follow-up Colonoscopy After a Positive Stool-Based Test in an Integrated Health System.Journal of general internal medicine · 2026Article
- A global scoping review of interventions to increase participation in screening programmes for breast, cervical and colorectal cancer between 2016 and 2025.BMC public health · 2026Article
- Rural barriers to colonoscopy screening identified through patient navigation.PEC innovation · 2026Article
- Outcomes and cost of patient navigation in increasing colorectal cancer screening in a safety net hospital-based health center.Cancer causes & control : CCC · 2026Article
- What makes patient navigation work? Identifying functions and forms and conducting causal loop diagramming to specify components of a successful colorectal cancer patient navigation program.Implementation science communications · 2026Article
- Association Between Spanish-Language Patient Navigation and Adherence to Multi-Target Stool DNA Testing Among Spanish-Speaking Patients at Sanitas Medical Center.Journal of cancer education : the official journal of the American Association for Cancer Education · 2025Article
- Racial Differences in Colorectal Adenomas at Screening Colonoscopy in the United States.Cancer epidemiology, biomarkers & prevention : a publication of the American Association for Cancer Research, cosponsored by the American Society of Preventive Oncology · 2025Observational
- Factors Influencing the Choice Between Multi-Target Stool DNA and Colonoscopy for Colorectal Cancer Screening Among Alaska Native Peoples.Life (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- Adherence to multi-target stool DNA testing for colorectal cancer screening in the United States.International journal of colorectal disease · 2025Article
- Colonoscopy quality measures and adherence to follow-up guidelines among endoscopists participating in a U.S. endoscopy registry.Gastrointestinal endoscopy · 2025Article
- Supporting ColoREctal Equitable Navigation (SCREEN): a protocol for a stepped-wedge cluster randomized trial for patient navigation in primary care.Implementation science communications · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundTo investigate uniformly successful results from a statewide program of patient navigation (PN) for colonoscopy, this comparison study evaluated the effectiveness of the PN intervention by comparing outcomes for navigated versus non-navigated patients in one of the community health clinics included in the statewide program. Outcomes measured included screening completion, adequacy of bowel preparation, missed appointments and cancellations, communication of test results, and consistency of follow-up recommendations with clinical guidelines.
methodsThe authors compared a subset of 131 patients who were navigated to a screening or surveillance colonoscopy with a similar subset of 75 non-navigated patients at one endoscopy clinic. The prevalence and prevalence odds ratios were computed to measure the association between PN and each study outcome measure.
resultsPatients in the PN intervention group were 11.2 times more likely to complete colonoscopy than control patients (96.2% vs 69.3%; P<.001), and were 5.9 times more likely to have adequate bowel preparation (P =.010). In addition, intervention patients had no missed appointments compared with 15.6% of control patients, and were 24.8 times more likely to not have a cancellation <24 hours before their appointment (P<.001). All navigated patients and their primary care providers received test results, and all follow-up recommendations were consistent with clinical guidelines compared with 82.4% of patients in the control group (P<.001).
conclusionsPN appears to be effective for improving colonoscopy screening completion and quality in the disparate populations most in need of intervention. To the best of our knowledge, the results of the current study demonstrate some of the strongest evidence for the effectiveness of PN to date, and highlight its value for public health. Cancer 2017;123:3356-66. © 2017 American Cancer Society.
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.