ArticleJournal of graduate medical education2020
Closing the Gap: A Resident-Led Quality Improvement Project to Improve Colorectal Cancer Screening in Primary Care Community Clinics.
Article in Journal of graduate medical education, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers, 3 of them syntheses 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 7 citations in OpenAlex.
- Primary care practice-based interventions and their effect on participation in population-based cancer screening programs: a systematic narrative review.Primary health care research & development · 2024Pooled it
- Components and effectiveness of patient navigation programmes to increase participation to breast, cervical and colorectal cancer screening: A systematic review.Cancer medicine · 2023Pooled it
- Social determinants of health and US cancer screening interventions: A systematic review.CA: a cancer journal for cliniciansPooled it
- Longitudinal quality improvement project to increase colorectal cancer screening for an underserved population in a resident physician-led primary care clinic.BMJ open quality · 2025Article
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 3 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundDespite the prevalence and mortality associated with colorectal cancer (CRC), 67.4% of US adults aged 50 to 75 years received recommended screening tests in 2016.
objectiveWe created a quality improvement project in resident-run outpatient clinics to increase CRC screening rates to ≥ 50% from 2016 to 2018, with emphasis on vulnerable patient populations.
methodsWe applied a comprehensive, multidisciplinary approach involving internal medicine and family medicine residents and staff from various hospital network departments, selecting 4 clinics to participate whose screening rates were below our network's average of 41%. Our intervention consisted of a needs assessment, resident-led educational sessions for clinicians, staff, and patients, use of fecal immunochemical tests as a first screening option, and application of care gap analysts at each clinic to answer patients' screening questions and to follow up regarding their screening status.
resultsWe obtained approximately 100 patient surveys from each clinic, a 100% staff completion rate (68 of 68), and a 90% clinician completion rate (85 of 94). Staff and clinician surveys revealed concerns about reducing patient screening fears, inconsistent documentation of screening outcomes, and need for education about CRC prevention, early detection, and screening recommendations. Patient surveys revealed educational deficits and concerns about perceived screening obstacles (eg, transportation and insurance). While CRC screening rates increased across all participating clinics, one clinic experienced an increase from 23% to 48%.
conclusionsOur multitargeted approach in primary care residency practices yielded increased CRC screening rates in vulnerable patient populations.
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.