ArticleAmerican journal of preventive medicine2018
Engaging Patients in Decisions About Cancer Screening: Exploring the Decision Journey Through the Use of a Patient Portal.
Article in American journal of preventive medicine, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 papers, 2 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
13 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 24 citations in OpenAlex.
- Functions and Outcomes of Personal Health Records for Patients with Chronic Diseases: A Systematic Review.Perspectives in health information managemen · 2021Pooled it
- Using Electronic Health Record Portals to Improve Patient Engagement: Research Priorities and Best Practices.Annals of internal medicine · 2020Pooled it
- Opportunities and Challenges When Using the Electronic Health Record for Practice-Integrated Patient-Facing Interventions: The e-Assist Colon Health Randomized Trial.Medical decision making : an international journal of the Society for Medical Decision Making · 2022Trial
- The Effects of a Theory-Based Patient Portal e-Learning Program for Older Adults with Chronic Illnesses.Telemedicine journal and e-health : the official journal of the American Telemedicine Association · 2019Trial
- Impact of Updated NCCN Guidelines on Clinical Management and Risk Communication forResearch square · 2026Article
- Iterative Situated Engagement Perspective: Meaning-Making Challenges Across Cancer Screening Phases.Cancers · 2025Article
- Advancing cancer care through digital access in the USA: a state-of-the-art review of patient portals in oncology.BMJ oncology · 2025Review
- Improving Depression Screening in Primary Care: A Quality Improvement Initiative.Journal of community health · 2022Article
- Out of reach? Correlates of cervical cancer underscreening in women with varying levels of healthcare interactions in a United States integrated delivery system.Preventive medicine · 2021Article
- Analysis of Employee Patient Portal Use and Electronic Health Record Access at an Academic Medical Center.Applied clinical informatics · 2020Article
- Policies and procedures governing patient portal use at an Academic Medical Center.JAMIA open · 2019Article
- Identifying Attrition Phases in Survey Data: Applicability and Assessment Study.Journal of medical Internet research · 2019Article
- Patient-Reported Needs Following a Referral for Colorectal Cancer Screening.American journal of preventive medicine · 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 5 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
introductionEngaging patients to make informed choices is paramount but difficult in busy practices. This study sought to engage patients outside the clinical setting to better understand how they approach cancer screening decisions, including their primary concerns and their preferences for finalizing their decision.
methodsTwelve primary care practices offering patients an online personal health record invited eligible patients to complete a 17-item online interactive module. Among 11,458 registered users, invitations to complete the module were sent to adults aged 50-74 years who were overdue for colorectal cancer screening and to women aged 40-49 years and men aged 55-69 who had not undergone a recent mammogram or prostate-specific antigen test, respectively.
resultsThe module was started by 2,355 patients and completed by 903 patients. Most respondents (76.8%) knew they were eligible for screening. Preferred next steps were talking to the clinician (76.6%), reading/research (28.6%), and consulting trusted friends/family (16.4%). Priority topics included how much screening improves life expectancy, comparative test performance, and the prevalence/health risks of the cancer. Leading fears were getting cancer/delayed detection (79.2%), abnormal results (40.5%), and testing complications (39.1%), the last referring to false test results, medical complications, or unnecessary treatments. Men eligible for prostate-specific antigen screening were more likely than women eligible for mammography to express concerns about testing complications and to prioritize weighing pros and cons over gut feelings (p<0.05).
conclusionsAlthough this sample was predisposed to screening, most patients wanted help in finalizing their decision. Many wanted to weigh the pros and cons and expressed fears of potential harms from screening. Understanding how patients approach decisions may help design more effective engagement strategies.
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.