Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29767821›Full record

ArticleJournal of community health2018

Formative Research on Knowledge and Preferences for Stool-based Tests compared to Colonoscopy: What Patients and Providers Think.

John S Luque, Kristin Wallace, Bridgette F Blankenship, Lydia G Roos, Franklin G Berger, Nancy R LaPelle, Cathy L Melvin

Erratum issuedAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of community health, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 9 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
0.8field-weighted citation impact, top 23% of its field
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

9 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 15 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Engaging the Community on Colorectal Cancer Screening Education: Focus Group Discussions Among African Americans.Journal of cancer education : the official journal of the American Association for Cancer Education · 2022
    Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors at 6 institutions in 1 country.

John S LuqueInstitute of Public Health, College of Pharmacy and Pharmaceutical Sciences, Florida A&M University, Science Research Center, 1515 South MLK Boulevard, Tallahassee, FL, 32307, USA. john.luque@famu.edu.
Kristin WallaceDepartment of Public Health Sciences, College of Medicine, Medical University of South Carolina, 68 President Street, Charleston, SC, 29425, USA.
Bridgette F BlankenshipDepartment of Public Health Sciences, College of Medicine, Medical University of South Carolina, 68 President Street, Charleston, SC, 29425, USA.
Lydia G RoosHealth Psychology Ph.D. Program, The University of North Carolina at Charlotte, 9201 University City Boulevard, Charlotte, NC, 28223, USA.
Franklin G BergerCenter for Colon Cancer Research, University of South Carolina, Columbia, SC, 29208, USA.
Nancy R LaPelleDivision of Preventive and Behavioral Medicine, University of Massachusetts, Worcester, MA, 01655, USA.
Cathy L MelvinDepartment of Public Health Sciences, College of Medicine, Medical University of South Carolina, 68 President Street, Charleston, SC, 29425, USA.
Medical University of South Carolina · USFlorida Agricultural and Mechanical University · USMUSC Hollings Cancer Center · USUniversity of Massachusetts Chan Medical School · USUniversity of North Carolina at Charlotte · USUniversity of South Carolina · US

Funding

Race, pathomolecular signature and colorectal cancer survivalK07CA151864 · NCI · MEDICAL UNIVERSITY OF SOUTH CAROLINA · PI WALLACE, KRISTIN · 2011 to 2015
$649k
NCI NIH HHS K07 CA151864NCI NIH HHS K07CA151864
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The rates of colorectal cancer (CRC) screening in the U.S. remain below national targets, so many people at risk are not being screened. The objective of this qualitative research project was to assess patient and provider knowledge and preferences about CRC screening modalities and specifically the use of the fecal immunochemical test (FIT) as a first line screening choice. Nine focus groups were conducted with a medically underserved patient population and qualitative interviews were administered to their medical providers. Thematic analysis was used to synthesize key findings. Both providers and patients thought that the FIT would be a good option for CRC screening both as an individual choice and for an overall program approach. The test is less expensive and therefore more readily available for patients compared to colonoscopy. Overall, there was consensus that the FIT offers a reasonably priced, simple approach to CRC screening which has broad appeal to both providers and patients. Concerns identified by patients and providers included the possibility of false positives with the FIT which could be caused by test contamination or failing to perform the test properly. Patients also described feelings of disgust toward performing the FIT and difficulties in following the instructions. Study findings indicate provider and patient support for using the FIT for CRC screening at both the individual and system-wide levels of implementation. While barriers to the use of the FIT were listed, benefits of using the FIT were perceived as positive motivators to engage previously unscreened and uninsured or under-insured individuals in CRC screening.

Indexed as

Occult BloodColonoscopyColorectal NeoplasmsCommunity Health ServicesEarly Detection of CancerFemaleHumansMedically Underserved AreaMedically UninsuredMiddle AgedQualitative ResearchColonoscopyColorectal cancerEarly detection of cancerFecal immunochemical testMedically underserved

Identifiers

PMID29767821
PMCPMC6239994
OpenAlexW2804930941

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
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.