ArticleInternational journal of environmental research and public health2017
Effects of Promotional Materials on Attitudes and Fear towards Colorectal Cancer Screening among Chinese Older Adults: An Experimental Study.
Article in International journal of environmental research and public health, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Cancer literacy differences of basic knowledge, prevention, early detection, treatment and recovery: a cross-sectional study of urban and rural residents in Northeast China.Frontiers in public health · 2024Article
- Identifying the main barriers for participation in a population-based colorectal cancer screening programme in East Azerbaijan, Iran.Ecancermedicalscience · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Colorectal cancer (CRC) screening is a cost-effective prevention and control strategy. However, the promotion of CRC screening for older adults may be difficult because reading CRC prevention information may evoke embarrassment, fear, and anxiety towards the screening procedure and cancer diagnosis. This study aims to (1) examine the effects of three promotional materials for CRC screening on the attitudes toward CRC screening tests (screening interest, screening effectiveness, and trust in the screening results) and cancer fear, and (2) to explore the interaction effect of cancer fear with screening effectiveness and trust in the screening results on screening interest of the three screening tests (fecal occult blood test (FOBT), flexible sigmoidoscopy, and colonoscopy) among Chinese older adults. A total of 114 community-dwelling older adults were asked to look at the corresponding promotional materials (pamphlet, cartoon, and video) of one of the three study groups. The pamphlet and video represent convention strategies and the cartoon represents an innovative strategy. No significant difference was observed in the screening interest and cancer fear across groups. FOBT was the most preferred screening modality. The video group has a large proportion agreed screening effectiveness of flexible sigmoidoscopy than pamphlet and cartoon groups and trusted in the screening results for FOBT and flexible sigmoidoscopy than the pamphlet group. Logistic regression results showed that the effect of trust in the screening results on screening interest for colonoscopy was greater among participants with higher cancer fear than those with lower cancer fear level. In conclusion, the three promotional groups had produced similar results in their attitudes toward CRC screening and cancer fear. The use of cartoons may be a comparable approach with conventional methods in the promotion of CRC screening. Additional components that can arouse fear and boost response efficacy simultaneously might also be useful for the effective promotion of colonoscopy among Chinese older adults.
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.