Trial reportAnnals of internal medicine2018
Effect of a Digital Health Intervention on Receipt of Colorectal Cancer Screening in Vulnerable Patients: A Randomized Controlled Trial.
Trial report in Annals of internal medicine, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to 3 registered trials, which are not on this map. Cited by 44 papers, 8 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.
A Primary Care Multilevel mHealth Colorectal Cancer Screening (mCRC) Intervention
Does Knowing One's Estimated Colorectal Cancer Risk Influence Screening Behavior?
Addressing Social Determinants of Health to Reduce Physician Burnout
Who cites it
44 citing papers in PubMed, 8 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 79 citations in OpenAlex.
- Enhancing patient knowledge and behaviour through digital health communication: a systematic review and random-effects meta-analysis of mobile, web-based, social media, telehealth, and AI-enabled interventions.Frontiers in public health · 2026Pooled it
- Effects of patient decision aids used pre-consult or in-consult on patient-clinician communication - secondary analysis of a systematic review with meta-analysis.BMC medical informatics and decision making · 2025Pooled it
- Decision aids for people facing health treatment or screening decisions.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2024Pooled it
- Pooled it
- Addressing Health Literacy in Patient Decision Aids: An Update from the International Patient Decision Aid Standards.Medical decision making : an international journal of the Society for Medical Decision Making · 2021Pooled it
- A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Patient Decision Aids for Socially Disadvantaged Populations: Update from the International Patient Decision Aid Standards (IPDAS).Medical decision making : an international journal of the Society for Medical Decision Making · 2021Pooled it
- Social Media and mHealth Technology for Cancer Screening: Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.Journal of medical Internet research · 2021Pooled it
- Applying the Electronic Health Literacy Lens: Systematic Review of Electronic Health Interventions Targeted at Socially Disadvantaged Groups.Journal of medical Internet research · 2020Pooled it
- Text Message Delivery of a Digital Tool for Reproductive Health Discussions in Primary Care: A Cluster Randomized Clinical Trial.JAMA network open · 2026Trial
- Interactivity in a Decision Aid: Findings From a Decision Aid to Technologically Enhance Shared Decision Making RCT.American journal of preventive medicine · 2019Trial
- Using Facebook to Improve Participation in Colorectal Cancer Screening: Protocol for a Cluster Randomized Controlled Trial.JMIR research protocols · 2026Article
- Facility-Level Associations Between Use of a Digital Health Platform for Voluntary Counseling and Testing and HIV Testing Outcomes in the Urban Primary Health Care Centers of Guangzhou, China: Cross-Sectional Study.Journal of medical Internet research · 2026Article
- Facilitators of and Barriers to Implementation of a Tablet-Based Digital Health Program for Colorectal Cancer Screening in Primary Care: Qualitative Pragmatic Implementation Study.JMIR mHealth and uHealth · 2026Article
- Using a digital health platform to implement a multi-component CRC screening intervention within a federally qualified health center: study protocol for a hybrid type I trial.BMC health services research · 2025Article
- Frequent Missed Opportunities for Earlier HIV Diagnosis in a Routine Opt-out Testing Environment in Atlanta.Open forum infectious diseases · 2025Article
- Review
- Effects of a Patient Portal Intervention to Address Diabetes Care Gaps: Protocol for a Pragmatic Randomized Controlled Trial.JMIR research protocols · 2024Article
- Limited English proficiency and reported receipt of colorectal cancer screening among adults 45-75 in 2019 and 2021.Preventive medicine reports · 2024Article
- Mixed-Method Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Shared Decision-Making Tools for Cancer Screening.Cancers · 2023Review
- Effectiveness and implementation of mPATH™-CRC: a mobile health system for colorectal cancer screening.Trials · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
8 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
Background: Screening for colorectal cancer (CRC) reduces mortality, yet more than one third of age-eligible Americans are unscreened. Objective: To examine the effect of a digital health intervention, Mobile Patient Technology for Health-CRC (mPATH-CRC), on rates of CRC screening. Design: Randomized clinical trial. (ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT02088333). Setting: 6 community-based primary care practices. Participants: 450 patients (223 in the mPATH-CRC group and 227 in usual care) scheduled for a primary care visit and due for routine CRC screening. Intervention: An iPad application that displays a CRC screening decision aid, lets patients order their own screening tests, and sends automated follow-up electronic messages to support patients. Measurements: The primary outcome was chart-verified completion of CRC screening within 24 weeks. Secondary outcomes were ability to state a screening preference, intention to receive screening, screening discussions, and orders for screening tests. All outcome assessors were blinded to randomization. Results: Baseline characteristics were similar between groups; 37% of participants had limited health literacy, and 53% had annual incomes less than $20 000. Screening was completed by 30% of mPATH-CRC participants and 15% of those receiving usual care (logistic regression odds ratio, 2.5 [95% CI, 1.6 to 4.0]). Compared with usual care, more mPATH-CRC participants could state a screening preference, planned to be screened within 6 months, discussed screening with their provider, and had a screening test ordered. Half of mPATH-CRC participants (53%; 118 of 223) "self-ordered" a test via the program. Limitation: Participants were English speakers in a single health care system. Conclusion: A digital health intervention that allows patients to self-order tests can increase CRC screening. Future research should identify methods for implementing similar interventions in clinical care. Primary Funding Source: National Cancer Institute.
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.