ArticlePreventive medicine2019
Correlates of colorectal cancer screening rates in primary care clinics serving low income, medically underserved populations.
Article in Preventive medicine, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 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
10 citing papers in PubMed, 15 citations in OpenAlex.
- 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
- Sustainability of evidence based interventions implemented in CDC's colorectal cancer control program.Implementation science communications · 2025Article
- Evaluating the implementation of colorectal cancer screening practices at King Abdul-Aziz Medical City, Riyadh.Journal of family medicine and primary care · 2025Article
- Multi-component interventions and change in screening rates in primary care clinics in the Colorectal Cancer Control Program.Preventive medicine reports · 2022Article
- Evaluating and Improving Cancer Screening Process Quality in a Multilevel Context: The PROSPR II Consortium Design and Research Agenda.Cancer epidemiology, biomarkers & prevention : a publication of the American Association for Cancer Research, cosponsored by the American Society of Preventive Oncology · 2022Article
- An observational study of workflows to support fecal testing for colorectal cancer screening in primary care practices serving Medicaid enrollees.BMC cancer · 2022Observational
- Evidence-Based Interventions and Colorectal Cancer Screening Rates: The Colorectal Cancer Screening Program, 2015-2017.American journal of preventive medicine · 2021Article
- Factors associated with colorectal cancer screening in a peer-counseling intervention study in partnership with African American churches.Preventive medicine reports · 2020Article
- Article
- No Quick Fixes: Integrating Population Health Education and Quality Improvement in a Large Residency Program.Journal for healthcare quality : official publication of the National Association for Healthcare QualityArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
introductionScreening for colorectal cancer (CRC) is effective in reducing CRC burden. Primary care clinics have an important role in increasing screening. We investigated associations between clinic-level CRC screening rates of the clinics serving low income, medically underserved population, and clinic-level screening interventions, clinic characteristics and community contexts.
methodsUsing data (2015-16) from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's (CDC) Colorectal Cancer Control Program, we linked clinic-level data with county-level contextual data from external sources. Analysis variables included clinic-level CRC screening rates, four different evidence-based interventions (EBIs) intended to increase screening, clinic characteristics, and clinic contexts. In the analysis (2018), we used weighted ordinary least square multiple regression analyses to associate EBIs and other covariates with clinic-level screening rates.
resultsClinics (N = 581) had an average screening rate of 36.3% (weighted. Client reminders had the highest association (5.6 percentage points) with screening rates followed by reducing structural barriers (4.9 percentage points), provider assessment and feedback (3.2 percentage points), and provider reminders (<1 percentage point). Increases in the number of EBIs was associated with steady increases in the screening rate (5.4 percentage points greater for one EBI). Screening rates were 16.4 percentage points higher in clinics with 4 EBIs vs. no EBI. Clinic characteristics, contexts (e.g. physician density), and context-EBI interactions were also associated with clinic screening rates.
conclusionsThese results may help clinics, especially those serving low income, medically underserved populations, select individual or combinations of EBIs suitable to their contexts while considering costs.
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.