ArticleFrontiers in oncology2017
Influencing Cancer Screening Participation Rates-Providing a Combined Cancer Screening Program (a 'One Stop' Shop) Could Be a Potential Answer.
Article in Frontiers in oncology, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 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
13 citing papers in PubMed.
- Comparative Effectiveness of 2 Interventions to Increase Breast, Cervical, and Colorectal Cancer Screening Among Women in the Rural US: A Randomized Clinical Trial.JAMA network open · 2023Trial
- Combined Breast and Lung Cancer Screening Among Dual-Eligible Women: A Descriptive Study.The Journal of surgical research · 2025Article
- Exploring public preferences and demand for ovarian cancer screening: a discrete choice experiment.Frontiers in oncology · 2025Article
- One-Stop Colon and Endometrial Screening (ONCE): a prospective study of combined cancer screening for Lynch syndrome.Proceedings (Baylor University. Medical Center) · 2025Article
- One-Stop-Shop Cancer Screening Clinic: Acceptability Testing.Journal of cancer education : the official journal of the American Association for Cancer Education · 2024Article
- Beyond lung cancer screening, an opportunity for early detection of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and cardiovascular diseases.JNCI cancer spectrum · 2024Article
- Article
- Article
- Correlates of non-adherence to breast, cervical, and colorectal cancer screening among screen-eligible women: a population-based cohort study in Ontario, Canada.Cancer causes & control : CCC · 2021Article
- Current evidence on screening for renal cancer.Nature reviews. Urology · 2020Review
- Public attitudes towards screening for kidney cancer: an online survey.BMC urology · 2020Article
- Comparative analysis of the access to health-care services and breast cancer therapy in 10 Eastern European countries.SAGE open medicine · 2020Article
- Patient perspectives on colorectal cancer screening and the role of general practice.BMC family practice · 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionParticipation in established cancer screening programs remains variable. Therefore, a renewed focus on how to increase screening uptake, including addressing structural barriers such as time, travel, and cost is needed. One approach could be the provision of combined cancer screening, where multiple screening tests are provided at the same time and location (essentially a 'One Stop' screening shop). This cohort study explored both cancer screening behavior and the acceptability of a combined screening approach.
methodsParticipants of the North Western Adelaide Health Study (NWAHS), South Australia were invited to participate in a questionnaire about cancer screening behaviors and the acceptability of a proposed 'One Stop' cancer screening shop. Data were collected from 10th August 2015 to 18th January 2016, weighted for selection probability, age, and sex and analyzed using descriptive and multivariable logistic regression analysis.
results1,562 people, 52% female (mean age 54.1 years ± 15.2) participated. Reported screening participation was low, the highest being for Pap Smear (34.4%). Common reasons for screening participation were preventing sickness (56.1%, CI 53.2-59.0%), maintaining health (51%, CI 48-53.9%), and free program provision (30.9%, CI 28.2-33.6%). Females were less likely to state that screening is not beneficial [OR 0.37 (CI 0.21-0.66),
conclusionIdentified screening behaviors in this study are similar to those reported in the literature. The high support for the concept of combined cancer screening demonstrates that this type of approach is acceptable to potential end users and warrants further investigation.
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.