ReviewPatient preference and adherence2018
Eliciting vulnerable patients' preferences regarding colorectal cancer screening: a systematic review.
Review in Patient preference and adherence, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 papers, 1 of them a synthesis 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.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
14 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Pooled it
- Trial
- Men's Preferences for Exiting Abdominal Aortic Aneurysm Surveillance: A Deliberative Engagement Session Study.Patient preference and adherence · 2026Article
- Estimating the long-term health impact and program cost-effectiveness of providing direct screening services to low-income, medically underserved patients through the Colorectal Cancer Control Program (CRCCP).Cancer causes & control : CCC · 2025Article
- Patient and provider perspectives on implementing patient navigation for colorectal cancer screening for Black and Latine patients: a qualitative study.BMC health services research · 2025Article
- Assessing the job preferences of senior medical students for mandatory service: a discrete choice experiment.Primary health care research & development · 2024Article
- Methods to Summarize Discrete-Choice Experiments in a Systematic Review: A Scoping Review.The patient · 2022Article
- Bias Issues in Colorectal Cancer Management: A Review.Annals of surgical oncology · 2022Review
- Article
- Disparities in Recommendations for Colorectal Cancer Screening Among Average-Risk Individuals: An Ecobiosocial Approach.Risk management and healthcare policy · 2022Review
- Centralized colorectal cancer screening outreach and patient navigation for vulnerable populations in North Carolina: study protocol for the SCORE randomized controlled trial.Implementation science communications · 2021Article
- Evaluating preferences for colorectal cancer screening in individuals under age 50 using the Analytic Hierarchy Process.BMC health services research · 2021Article
- Evaluation of Blood Stool Test Utilization for Colorectal Cancer Screening in Georgia, USA.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2021Article
- Motives for non-adherence to colonoscopy advice after a positive colorectal cancer screening test result: a qualitative study.Scandinavian journal of primary health care · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundPatient preferences are important to consider in the decision-making process for colorectal cancer (CRC) screening. Vulnerable populations, such as racial/ethnic minorities and low-income, veteran, and rural populations, exhibit lower screening uptake. This systematic review summarizes the existing literature on vulnerable patient populations' preferences regarding CRC screening.
methodsWe searched the CINAHL, PsycINFO, PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science databases for articles published between January 1, 1996 and December 31, 2017. We screened studies for eligibility and systematically abstracted and compared study designs and outcomes.
resultsA total of 43 articles met the inclusion criteria, out of 2,106 articles found in our search. These 43 articles were organized by the primary sub-population(s) whose preferences were reported: 27 report on preferences among racial/ethnic minorities, eight among low-income groups, six among veterans, and two among rural populations. The majority of studies (n=34) focused on preferences related to test modality. No single test modality was overwhelmingly supported by all sub-populations, although veterans seemed to prefer colonoscopy. Test attributes such as accuracy, sensitivity, cost, and convenience were also noted as important features. Furthermore, a preference for shared decision-making between vulnerable patients and providers was found.
conclusionThe heterogeneity in study design, populations, and outcomes of the selected studies revealed a wide spectrum of CRC screening preferences within vulnerable populations. More decision aids and discrete choice experiments that focus on vulnerable populations are needed to gain a more nuanced understanding of how vulnerable populations weigh particular features of screening methods. Improved CRC screening rates may be achieved through the alignment of vulnerable populations' preferences with screening program design and provider practices. Collaborative decision-making between providers and vulnerable patients in preventive care decisions may also be important.
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.