Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32309115›Full record

ArticlePreventive medicine reports2020

The influence of patient-provider communication on cancer screenings differs among racial and ethnic groups.

Tiffany B Kindratt, Florence J Dallo, Marlyn Allicock, Folefac Atem, Bijal A Balasubramanian

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Preventive medicine reports, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 17 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
17citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
2.0field-weighted citation impact, top 11% 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, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 31 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Trial
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. 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 · 2022
    Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  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

5 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Tiffany B KindrattUniversity of Texas at Arlington, Public Health Program, Department of Kinesiology, College of Nursing and Health Innovation, 500 West Nedderman Drive, Arlington, TX 76019-0259, United States.
Florence J DalloOakland University, Department of Public and Environmental Wellness, School of Health Sciences, United States.
Marlyn AllicockUT Health, The University of Texas Health Science Center at Houston, School of Public Health Dallas, Department of Health Promotion and Behavioral Sciences, United States.
Folefac AtemUT Health, The University of Texas Health Science Center at Houston, School of Public Health Dallas, Department of Biostatistics and Data Science, United States.
Bijal A BalasubramanianUT Health, The University of Texas Health Science Center at Houston, School of Public Health Dallas, Department of Epidemiology, Human Genetics, and Environmental Sciences, Center for Health Promotion and Prevention Research, UT Southwestern - Harold C. Simmons Comprehensive Cancer Center, United States.
The University of Texas Health Science Center at Houston · USOakland University · USThe University of Texas at Arlington · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Our study aimed to estimate how associations between adults' perceptions of specific domains of PPC quality and their likelihood of receiving cancer screenings differed by race and ethnicity. We analyzed 2011-2015 Medical Expenditure Panel Survey (MEPS) data. Samples included 7337 women ages 50-74 (breast), 13,276 women ages 21-65 (cervical), and 9792 adults ages ≥50 years (colorectal). To examine individual domains of PPC quality (independent variables), adults reported how often providers: listened; showed respect; spent enough time; explained things; gave specific instructions; and demonstrated health literate practices (gave clear instructions and asked them to "teach-back" how they will follow instructions). Dependent variables were breast, cervical, and colorectal cancer screenings. Multivariable logistic regression was used to evaluate the odds of receiving cancer screenings using a composite measure of PPC quality and separate domains. Hispanic and non-Hispanic black adults who reported their providers always demonstrated PPC quality had higher odds of receiving colorectal cancer screenings compared to those whose providers did not. Adults' perceptions of whether or not their provider gave them specific instructions increased their odds of receiving breast (Hispanics OR = 1.65, 95% CI = 1.09, 2.51; non-Hispanic blacks OR = 1.54, 95% CI = 1.06, 2.24) and colorectal (non-Hispanic whites OR = 1.37, 95% CI = 1.13, 1.66; Hispanics OR = 1.29, 95% CI = 1.01, 1.66; non-Hispanic blacks OR = 1.92, 95% CI = 1.39, 2.65) cancer screenings. Non-Hispanic Asian women who reported their health care providers demonstrated "teach-back" had higher odds (OR = 2.25; 95% CI = 1.10, 4.62) of receiving cervical cancer screenings. Efforts to improve cancer screenings should focus on training providers to demonstrate health literate practices to improve cancer screenings.

Indexed as

Cancer screeningEthnicityHealth disparitiesMedical Expenditure Panel SurveyPatient-provider communicationRace

Identifiers

PMID32309115
PMCPMC7155227
OpenAlexW3014922454

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.