Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29696155›Full record

ArticleContemporary clinical trials communications2018

Conducting a randomized trial in rural and urban safety-net health centers: Added value of community-based participatory research.

Meera Muthukrishnan, Siobhan Sutcliffe, Jean M Hunleth, Jean S Wang, Graham A Colditz, Aimee S James

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Contemporary clinical trials communications, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing 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

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

  1. Pooled it
  2. Geographic differences in community oncology provider and practice location characteristics in the central United States.The Journal of rural health : official journal of the American Rural Health Association and the National Rural Health Care Association · 2022
    Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. 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

6 authors.

Meera MuthukrishnanDepartment of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Saint Louis University College of Public Health and Social Justice, St. Louis, MO, USA.
Siobhan SutcliffeDivision of Public Health Sciences, Department of Surgery, Washington University School of Medicine, St. Louis, MO, USA.
Jean M HunlethDivision of Public Health Sciences, Department of Surgery, Washington University School of Medicine, St. Louis, MO, USA.
Jean S WangDivision of Gastroenterology, Department of Medicine, Washington University School of Medicine, St. Louis, MO, USA.
Graham A ColditzDivision of Public Health Sciences, Department of Surgery, Washington University School of Medicine, St. Louis, MO, USA.
Aimee S JamesDivision of Public Health Sciences, Department of Surgery, Washington University School of Medicine, St. Louis, MO, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundColorectal cancer (CRC) is the second most common cancer in the US. Despite evidence that screening reduces CRC incidence and mortality, screening rates are sub-optimal with disparities by race/ethnicity, income, and geography. Rural-urban differences in CRC screening are understudied even though approximately one-fifth of the US population lives in rural areas. This focus on urban populations limits the generalizability and dissemination potential of screening interventions.

methodsUsing community-based participatory research (CBPR) principles, we designed a cluster-randomized trial, adaptable to a range of settings, including rural and urban health centers. We enrolled 483 participants across 11 health centers representing 2 separate networks. Both networks serve medically-underserved communities; however one is primarily rural and one primarily urban.

resultsOur goal in this analysis is to describe baseline characteristics of participants and examine setting-level differences. CBPR was a critical for recruiting networks to the trial. Patient respondents were predominately female (61.3%), African-American (66.5%), and earned <$1200 per month (87.1%). The rural network sample was older; more likely to be female, white, disabled or retired, and have a higher income, but fewer years of education.

conclusionsVariation in the samples partly reflects the CBPR process and partly reflects inherent differences in the communities. This confirmed the importance of using CBPR when planning for eventual dissemination, as it enhanced our ability to work within diverse settings. These baseline findings indicate that using a uniform approach to implementing a trial or intervention across diverse settings might not be effective or efficient.

Indexed as

Colorectal cancer screeningCommunity-based participatory researchDissemination and implementationHealth disparitiesMedically underserved populationsRandomized trial

Identifiers

PMID29696155
PMCPMC5898527

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.