Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30924402›Full record

Trial reportJournal of health communication2019

Improving Adherence to Colorectal Cancer Screening: A Randomized Intervention to Compare Screener vs. Survivor Narratives.

Amy McQueen, Charlene Caburnay, Matthew Kreuter, Julianne Sefko

Abstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in Journal of health communication, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
8.3field-weighted citation impact, top 3% 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

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

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. 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

4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Amy McQueena School of Medicine , Washington University in St. Louis , St. Louis , Missouri , USA.
Charlene Caburnayb School of Social Work , Washington University in St. Louis , St. Louis , Missouri , USA.
Matthew Kreuterb School of Social Work , Washington University in St. Louis , St. Louis , Missouri , USA.
Julianne Sefkoa School of Medicine , Washington University in St. Louis , St. Louis , Missouri , USA.
Washington University in St. Louis · US

Funding

COMPARING SCREENER VS. SURVIVOR ROLE MODELS TO IMPROVE COLON CANCER SCREENINGR21CA187608 · NCI · WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY · PI MCQUEEN, AMY · 2014 to 2015
$365k
NCI NIH HHS R21 CA187608
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Interventions are needed to increase colorectal cancer screening (CRCS) uptake. Narratives may have advantages over didactic information. We tested different narratives for increasing CRCS intentions and behaviors, and examined their mechanisms of influence. We randomized 477 unscreened adults 50-75 years old to one of three groups: CRCS information only (1) or CRCS information plus a photo and text narrative of a CRC survivor (2) or CRC screener who did not have cancer (3). Photos were tailored on participants' sex, age group, and race/ethnicity. Participants completed online surveys before and after intervention exposure, and 1-, 6-, and 12-months follow-up. Thirty percent of participants completed CRCS. Narrative conditions (vs. information only) were negatively associated with intention, but also positively influenced intentions through greater emotional engagement. Survivor (vs. screener) narratives were positively associated with CRCS, and had mixed effects on intention - positively through emotional engagement and negatively through self-referencing engagement to self-efficacy. Survivor narratives elicited more negative affect, which had positive and negative influences on intention. Continued research using path models to understand the mechanisms of narrative effects will inform theory development and message design. Additional measurement evaluation is needed to adequately capture and then compare the effects of different components of narrative engagement.

Indexed as

AgedCancer SurvivorsColorectal NeoplasmsEarly Detection of CancerFemaleFollow-Up StudiesHealth CommunicationHumansIntentionMaleMiddle AgedNarrationSurveys and Questionnaires

Identifiers

PMID30924402
PMCPMC6459702
OpenAlexW2933763232

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.