ArticleBMC public health2018
Patterns and predictors of adherence to colorectal cancer screening recommendations in Alberta's Tomorrow Project participants stratified by risk.
Article in BMC public health, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 17 papers, 1 of them a synthesis 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, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Inappropriate use of clinical practices in Canada: a systematic review.CMAJ : Canadian Medical Association journal = journal de l'Association medicale canadienne · 2022Pooled it
- Trial
- Evaluating the implementation of a multicomponent intervention to improve faecal immunochemical test-based (FIT) colorectal cancer screening in primary care.BMJ open quality · 2025Article
- Patient Perspectives on Personalized Risk Communication Using Polygenic Risk Scores to Inform Colorectal Cancer Screening Decisions.AJPM focus · 2025Article
- Improving colorectal cancer in Alberta, Canada: a qualitative study of patients and close contacts' perceptions on diagnosis following an emergency department presentation.BMC health services research · 2024Article
- Barriers and facilitators of implementing a multicomponent intervention to improve faecal immunochemical test (FIT) colorectal cancer screening in primary care clinics, Alberta.BMJ open quality · 2024Article
- Breaking Down Barriers to Detection and Care in Early-Age-Onset Colorectal Cancer in Canada.Current oncology (Toronto, Ont.) · 2023Article
- Provincial variation in colorectal cancer screening adherence in Canada; evidence from the Canadian Partnership for Tomorrow's Health.Frontiers in oncology · 2023Article
- Patterns and predictors of adherence to breast cancer screening recommendations in Alberta's Tomorrow Project.Preventive medicine reports · 2022Article
- A scoping review of risk-stratified bowel screening: current evidence, future directions.Cancer causes & control : CCC · 2022Article
- Differences in Breast and Colorectal Cancer Screening Adherence Among Women Residing in Urban and Rural Communities in the United States.JAMA network open · 2021Article
- Does self-reported symptom questionnaire play a role in nonadherence to colonoscopy for risk-increased population in the Tianjin colorectal cancer screening programme?BMC gastroenterology · 2021Article
- Comparative effectiveness and cost-effectiveness analysis of a urine metabolomics test vs. alternative colorectal cancer screening strategies.International journal of colorectal disease · 2019Article
- Colorectal Cancer: Applying the Value Transformation Framework to increase the percent of patients receiving screening in Federally Qualified Health Centers.Preventive medicine reports · 2019Article
- Low Screening Rates for Diabetes Mellitus Among Family Members of Affected Relatives.AMIA ... Annual Symposium proceedings. AMIA Symposium · 2018Article
- Article
- Colorectal Cancer Screening Among Métis and Non-Métis Males and Females in Alberta, Canada.Cancer control : journal of the Moffitt Cancer CenterArticle
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
backgroundColorectal cancer (CRC) screening is an important modifiable behaviour for cancer control. Regular screening, following recommendations for the type, timing and frequency based on personal CRC risk, contributes to earlier detection and increases likelihood of successful treatment.
methodsTo determine adherence to screening recommendations in a large provincial cohort of adults, participants in Alberta's Tomorrow Project (n = 9641) were stratified based on increasing level of CRC risk: age (Age-only), family history of CRC (FamilyHx), personal history of bowel conditions (PersonalHx), or both (Family/PersonalHx) using self-reported information from questionnaires. Provincial and national guidelines for timing and frequency of screening tests were used to determine if participants were up-to-date based on their CRC risk. Screening status was compared between enrollment (2000-2006) and follow-up (2008) to determine screening pattern over time.
resultsThe majority of participants (77%) fell into the average risk Age-only strata. Only a third of this strata were up-to-date for screening at baseline, but the proportion increased across the higher risk strata, with > 90% of the highest risk Family/PersonalHx strata up-to-date at baseline. There was also a lower proportion (< 25%) of the Age-only group who were regular screeners over time compared to the higher risk strata, though age, higher income and uptake of other screening tests (e.g. mammography) were associated with a greater likelihood of regular screening in multinomial logistic regression.
conclusionsThe low (< 50%) adherence to regular CRC screening in average and moderate risk strata highlights the need to further explore barriers to uptake of screening across different risk profiles.
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.