Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29546218›Full record

ReviewAIMS public health2017

Approaching the Hard-to-Reach in Organized Colorectal Cancer Screening: an Overview of Individual, Provider and System Level Coping Strategies.

Jason Liwen Huang, Yuan Fang, Miaoyin Liang, Shannon Ts Li, Simpson Kc Ng, Zero Sn Hui, Jessica Ching, Harry Haoxiang Wang, Martin Chi Sang Wong

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in AIMS public health, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

6 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Barriers to Colorectal Cancer Screening and Surveillance in Homeless Patients: A Case Report and Policy Recommendations.Annals of surgery open : perspectives of surgical history, education, and clinical approaches · 2022
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

9 authors.

Jason Liwen HuangJC School of Public Health and Primary Care, Faculty of Medicine, Chinese University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong SAR, China.
Yuan FangJC School of Public Health and Primary Care, Faculty of Medicine, Chinese University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong SAR, China.
Miaoyin LiangJC School of Public Health and Primary Care, Faculty of Medicine, Chinese University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong SAR, China.
Shannon Ts LiJC School of Public Health and Primary Care, Faculty of Medicine, Chinese University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong SAR, China.
Simpson Kc NgJC bowel cancer education center, Prince of Wales Hospital, Chinese University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong SAR, China.
Zero Sn HuiJC bowel cancer education center, Prince of Wales Hospital, Chinese University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong SAR, China.
Jessica ChingJC bowel cancer education center, Prince of Wales Hospital, Chinese University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong SAR, China.
Harry Haoxiang WangSchool of Public Health, Sun Yat-sen University, Guangzhou 510080, Guangdong, China.
Martin Chi Sang WongJC School of Public Health and Primary Care, Faculty of Medicine, Chinese University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong SAR, China.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundDespite the proven effectiveness of colorectal cancer (CRC) screening on reduction of CRC mortality, the uptake of CRC screening remains low. Participation rate is one of determinants for the success of organized population-based screening program. This review aims to identify those who are hard-to-reach, and summarize the strategies to increase their screening rate from individual, provider and system levels.

methodsA systematic search of electronic English databases was conducted on the factors and strategies of uptake in CRC screening for the hard-to-reach population up to May 2017. DISCUSSION: The coverage rate and participation rate are two indexes to identify the hard-to-reach population in organized CRC screening program. However, the homeless, new immigrants, people with severe mental illness, the jail intimates, and people with characteristics including lower education levels and/or low socioeconomic status, living in rural/remote areas, without insurance, and racial minorities are usually recognized as hard-to-reach populations. For them, organized screening programs offer a better coverage, while novel invitation approaches for eligible individuals and multiple strategies from primary care physicians are still needed to enhance screening rates among subjects who are hard-to-reach. Suggestions implied the effectiveness of interventions at the system level, including linkages to general practice; use of decision making tools; enlisting supports from coalition; and the continuum from screening to diagnosis and treatment.

conclusionOrganized CRC screening offers a system access to approach the hard-to-reach populations. To increase their uptake, multiple and novel strategies from individual, provider and system levels should be applied. For policymakers, public healthcare providers and community stakeholders, it is a test to tailor their potential needs and increase their participation rates through continuous efforts to eliminate disparities and inequity in CRC screening service.

Indexed as

colorectal cancerhard-to-reachparticipationscreeninguptake

Identifiers

PMID29546218
PMCPMC5690455

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.