Trial reportAmerican journal of surgery2018
Colorectal cancer screening in rural and poor-resourced communities.
Trial report in American journal of surgery, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 17 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled 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.
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
17 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 30 citations in OpenAlex.
- Geographical Disparities in Faecal Immunochemical Test-Based Colorectal Cancer Screening Participation and Positivity Rates: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Health promotion journal of Australia : official journal of Australian Association of Health Promotion Professionals · 2026Pooled it
- Multilevel factors influencing colorectal cancer screening adherence: A systematic literature review.PloS one · 2026Pooled it
- Quality measures in the delivery of equitable endoscopic care to traditionally underserved patients in the United States.Gastrointestinal endoscopy · 2025Guideline
- Cancer screening educational interventions in rural and farmworker communities: a systematic literature review.Ethnicity & health · 2023Pooled it
- Self-sampling tools to increase cancer screening among underserved patients: a pilot randomized controlled trial.JNCI cancer spectrum · 2024Trial
- 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
- Characteristics of interventions aimed at reducing inequalities along the cancer continuum: A scoping review.International journal of cancer · 2025Article
- Interventions to Increase Colorectal Cancer Screening Uptake in Rural Settings: A Scoping Review.Preventing chronic disease · 2025Article
- Persistent Poverty, Rural Location, and Racial Segregation Are Factors in Colorectal Cancer Screening in Low-Income and Uninsured Populations.Journal of the advanced practitioner in oncology · 2025Article
- Implementing evidence-based practices in rural settings: a scoping review of theories, models, and frameworks.Frontiers in health services · 2024Article
- Realist review of community coalitions and outreach interventions to increase access to primary care for vulnerable populations: a realist review.Archives of public health = Archives belges de sante publique · 2023Article
- Barriers to and solutions for representative inclusion across the lifespan and in life course research: The need for structural competency highlighted by the COVID-19 pandemic.Journal of clinical and translational science · 2023Review
- An Online Survey and Focus Groups for Promoting Cancer Prevention Measures.Journal of cancer education : the official journal of the American Association for Cancer Education · 2022Article
- Article
- Promoting colorectal cancer screening: A scoping review of screening interventions and resources.Preventive medicine · 2021Article
- Health Insurance Coverage Mandates: Colorectal Cancer Screening in the Post-ACA Era.Cancer prevention research (Philadelphia, Pa.) · 2021Article
- The impact of screening on the survival of colorectal cancer in Shanghai, China: a population based study.BMC public health · 2019Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
To test the efficacy of a community-based intervention, Empowering Communities for Life (EC4L), designed to increase colorectal cancer (CRC) screening through fecal occult blood test (FOBT) in rural underserved communities in a randomized controlled trial. Participants were randomized into 3 groups (2 interventions and 1 control). Interventions were delivered by community lay health workers or by academic health professionals. The main outcome of interest was return rate of FOBT screening kit within 60 days. Participants included 330 screening-eligible adults. The overall return rate of FOBT kits within 60 days was 32%. The professional group (Arm 2) had the highest proportion of returned FOBTs within 60 days at 42% (n = 46/110), a significantly higher return rate than the lay group (Arm 1) [28%(n = 29/103);P = 0.0422] or control group (Arm 3) [25%(n = 29/117);P = 0.0099]. Thus, one arm (Arm 2) of our intervention produced significantly higher CRC screening through FOBT. Community-based participation partnered with academic health professionals enhanced CRC screening among rural and poor-resourced communities.
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.