Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32112366›Full record

ArticleJournal of cancer education : the official journal of the American Association for Cancer Education2021

Public Awareness and Perceptions of Colorectal Cancer Prevention: a Cross-Sectional Survey.

Markus Dines Knudsen, Geir Hoff, Ida Tidemann-Andersen, Gry Ekeberg Bodin, Sissel Øvervold, Paula Berstad

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of cancer education : the official journal of the American Association for Cancer Education, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 17 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
17citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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.

  1. Observational
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Acceptability of risk-stratified population screening across cancer types: Qualitative interviews with the Australian public.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2021
    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

6 authors.

Markus Dines KnudsenSection of Bowel Cancer Screening, Cancer Registry of Norway, Oslo, Norway.ORCID 0000-0001-9306-8327
Geir HoffSection of Bowel Cancer Screening, Cancer Registry of Norway, Oslo, Norway.
Ida Tidemann-AndersenThe Norwegian Cancer Society, P.O. Box 4, Centrum, 0101, Oslo, Norway.
Gry Ekeberg BodinThe Norwegian Cancer Society, P.O. Box 4, Centrum, 0101, Oslo, Norway.
Sissel ØvervoldThe Norwegian Cancer Society, P.O. Box 4, Centrum, 0101, Oslo, Norway.
Paula BerstadSection of Bowel Cancer Screening, Cancer Registry of Norway, Oslo, Norway. paula.berstad@kreftregisteret.no.ORCID 0000-0002-9025-4455

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

We aimed to investigate awareness of colorectal cancer (CRC) lifestyle risk factors, willingness to participate in CRC screening, and preferences concerning channels for information on CRC prevention in the general population, including the target age of the upcoming Norwegian national CRC screening program. The present study was a cross-sectional online survey of adults aged 39 to 55 years registered as Kantar Web Panel respondents in Norway. The survey included demographic characteristics, multiple choice knowledge questions of lifestyle risk factors for CRC, attitudes towards CRC screening, and preferred channels for receiving information on CRC prevention. Of 4375 participants invited, 2007 (46%) answered the survey. The average number of correctly identified lifestyle risk factors for CRC was 7.3 of ten. Women were significantly more likely than men, and those with university or college education more likely than those with lower education to correctly identify at least eight risk factors (odds ratio, OR = 1.53, 95% confidence interval, CI 1.25-1.87, and OR = 1.51, 95% CI 1.23-1.86, respectively). The number of correctly identified risk factors was positively associated with willingness to participate in CRC screening (P for trend < 0.001). The national public work force and the Norwegian Cancer Society were selected by 76% and 69% of the participants, respectively, to be trustworthy sources of information on CRC prevention. Awareness of CRC risk factors was associated with willingness to participate in CRC screening. The national public work force and Cancer Society can be generally accepted sources of CRC preventive information.

Indexed as

Colorectal NeoplasmsHealth Knowledge, Attitudes, PracticeAdultCross-Sectional StudiesEarly Detection of CancerFemaleHumansMaleMass ScreeningPerceptionSurveys and QuestionnairesAwarenessColorectal cancerLifestylePreventionRisk factorScreening

Identifiers

PMID32112366
PMCPMC8520865

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.