Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30719405›Full record

ArticlePreventive medicine reports2019

Demographic, health, and attitudinal factors predictive of cancer screening decisions in older adults.

Nancy L Schoenborn, Qian-Li Xue, Craig E Pollack, Ellen M Janssen, John F P Bridges, Antonio C Wolff, Cynthia M Boyd

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Preventive medicine reports, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 17 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
17citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
1.6field-weighted citation impact, top 15% 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

17 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 27 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. Trial
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. 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

7 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.

Nancy L SchoenbornThe Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD, United States of America.
Qian-Li XueThe Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD, United States of America.
Craig E PollackThe Johns Hopkins University School of Public Health, Baltimore, MD, United States of America.
Ellen M JanssenICON Plc, Gaithersburg, MD, United States of America.
John F P BridgesOhio State University, Department of Biomedical Informatics, Columbus, OH, United States of America.
Antonio C WolffThe Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD, United States of America.
Cynthia M BoydThe Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD, United States of America.
Johns Hopkins Medicine · USJohns Hopkins University · USIcon (United States) · USThe Ohio State University · US

Funding

Technological Assessment and Solutions Core - RC4P30AG021334 · NIA · JOHNS HOPKINS UNIVERSITY · PI Jeremy D Walston · 2003 to 2026
$33.2M
Institute for Clinical and Translational ResearchKL2TR001077 · NCATS · JOHNS HOPKINS UNIVERSITY · PI FORD, DANIEL ERNEST · 2013 to 2017
$9.2M
Patient-Centered Care for Older Adults with Multiple Chronic Conditions: Research and Mentoring ProgramK24AG056578 · NIA · JOHNS HOPKINS UNIVERSITY · PI BOYD, CYNTHIA MELINDA · 2017 to 2021
$1.1M
Improving cancer screening in older adults with limited life expectancyK76AG059984 · NIA · JOHNS HOPKINS UNIVERSITY · PI SCHOENBORN, NANCY · 2018 to 2021
$972k
Understanding Older Adults' Perspectives on How to Incorporate Life Expectancy in Cancer ScreeningR03AG050912 · NIA · JOHNS HOPKINS UNIVERSITY · PI SCHOENBORN, NANCY · 2015 to 2016
$243k
NCATS NIH HHS KL2 TR001077NIA NIH HHS K24 AG056578NIA NIH HHS K76 AG059984NIA NIH HHS P30 AG021334NIA NIH HHS R03 AG050912
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Many older adults receive routine cancer screening even when it is no longer recommended. We sought to identify demographic, health-related, and attitudinal factors that are most predictive of continued breast, colorectal, and prostate cancer screening decisions in older adults under various scenarios. A sample of adults age 65+ (n = 1272) were recruited from a nationally representative panel in November 2016, of which 881 (69.3%) completed our survey. Participants were presented vignettes in which we experimentally varied a hypothetical patient's life expectancy, age, quality of life, and physician screening recommendation. The dependent variable was the choice to continue cancer screening in the vignette. Classification and regression tree (CART) analysis was used to identify characteristics most predictive of screening decisions; both the participants' characteristics and the hypothetical patient's characteristics in the vignettes were included in the analysis. CART analysis uses recursive partitioning to create a classification tree in which variables predictive of the outcome are included as hierarchical tree nodes. We used automated ten-fold cross-validation to select the tree with lowest misclassification and highest predictive accuracy. Participants' attitude towards cancer screening was most predictive of choosing screening. Among those who agreed with the statement "I plan to get screened for cancer for as long as I live" (n = 300, 31.9%), 73.2% chose screening and 57.2% would still choose screening if hypothetical patient had 1-year life expectancy. For this subset of older adults with enthusiasm towards screening even when presented with scenario involving limited life expectancy, efforts are needed to improve informed decision-making about screening.

Indexed as

Cancer screeningCART analysisDecision-makingLife expectancy

Identifiers

PMID30719405
PMCPMC6350222
OpenAlexW2911026163

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.