ArticleBMC public health2018
Why are the public so positive about colorectal cancer screening?
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 8 papers.
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
8 citing papers in PubMed.
- Associations between social capital and screening mammography among older U.S. women.Preventive medicine reports · 2025Article
- Communicating the results of risk-based breast cancer screening through visualizations of risk: a participatory design approach.BMC medical informatics and decision making · 2024Article
- Examining the Factors That Affect the Diagnosis of Patients with Positive Fecal Occult Blood Test Results.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2022Article
- Decision-making in screening positive participants who follow up with colonoscopy in the Dutch colorectal cancer screening programme: A mixed-method study.Psycho-oncology · 2022Article
- Colorectal cancer and potential predictors of never screened for faecal occult blood test: a narrative review.Journal of public health research · 2021Article
- Journalists' views on media coverage of medical tests and overdiagnosis: a qualitative study.BMJ open · 2021Article
- Factors affecting the follow-up time after a positive result in the fecal occult blood test.PloS one · 2021Article
- Factors of Never Screened with Faecal Occult Blood Test in Public Primary Care Facilities.Asian Pacific journal of cancer prevention : APJCP · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundColorectal cancer (CRC) screening is widely recommended. Earlier research showed that the general public are positive about CRC screening, as too the eligible CRC screening population. Among the eligible CRC screening population this positive perception has been shown to be associated with their perceptions of cancer, preventive health screening and their own health. It is unclear whether these concepts are also associated with the positive perception of the general public. Knowing this can provide insight into the context in which public perception concerning CRC screening is established. The aim of our study was to examine which main perceptions are associated with the public perception concerning CRC screening.
methodsAn online survey was carried out in a Dutch population sample (adults 18+) among 1679 respondents (response rate was 56%). We assessed the public's perceptions concerning cancer, preventive health screening, own health, and the government, and examined their possible association with public opinion concerning CRC screening.
resultsThe public's positive attitude towards CRC screening is associated with the public's positive attitude towards preventive health screening in general, their perceived seriousness of cancer, their belief of health being important, and their trust in the government regarding national screening programmes.
conclusionTrust in the government and perceptions regarding the seriousness of cancer, preventive health screening and the importance of one's health seem to be important factors influencing how the public view CRC screening. The public are likely to process information about CRC screening in such a way that it confirms their existing beliefs of cancer being serious and preventive screening being positive. This makes it likely that they will notice information about the possible benefits of CRC screening more than information about its possible downsides, which would also contribute to the positive perception of CRC screening.
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.