Trial reportJournal of the American Board of Family Medicine : JABFM
Patient, Clinician, and Communication Factors Associated with Colorectal Cancer Screening.
Trial report in Journal of the American Board of Family Medicine : JABFM. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers, 1 of them a synthesis 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
12 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 12 citations in OpenAlex.
- Key challenges in communication across milestones of cancer care continuum: a systematic review.BMC palliative care · 2026Pooled it
- Colorectal Cancer Screening Communication and Completion Among Black and Hispanic Primary Care Patients: A Cross-Sectional Study.Journal of general internal medicine · 2026Article
- Colorectal Cancer Screening Communication and Completion Among Black and Hispanic Primary Care Patients.Research square · 2026Article
- Assessment of knowledge, attitude, and practices of Lebanese diabetic patients and their relation to medication adherence and doctor-patient communication: A cross-sectional study.Journal of public health research · 2026Article
- Association Between Patient-Provider Relationship Quality and Colorectal Cancer Screening Uptake Among US Adults.Cureus · 2026Article
- Mapping colorectal cancer screening workflows in primary care.BMJ public health · 2026Article
- Primary healthcare providers' knowledge, attitudes, and practices regarding cancer screening recommendation and referral in Georgia, 2023.The European journal of general practice · 2025Article
- Housing Status and Cancer Screening in US Veterans.Journal of general internal medicine · 2025Article
- Utilizing Quality Improvement Methodology to Address Disparities in Colorectal Cancer Screening Between Faculty and Resident Physicians.Journal of general internal medicine · 2025Article
- Determinants of screening participation of disadvantaged populations in France: a qualitative study.Open research Europe · 2024Article
- Medical screening tests and vaccination among hospital-based physicians in Israel.BMC health services research · 2022Article
- Association between Patient-Provider Communication and Self-Perceived Mental Health in US Adults with Cancer: Real-World Evidence through Medical Expenditure Panel Survey.Diseases (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
introductionScreening for colorectal cancer is beneficial. Yet, screening remains suboptimal, and underserved populations are at greater risk for not being appropriately screened. Although many barriers to screening are understood, less is known about how the decision-making process on whether to receive colonoscopy or stool testing influences screening.
methodsAs part of a randomized controlled trial to test engaging underserved populations in preventive care through online, personalized, educational material, 2417 patients aged 50 to 74 years were randomly selected from the 70,998 patients with an office visit the year prior and mailed a survey to assess decision-making for colorectal cancer screening. Twenty practices in practice-based research networks from 5 diverse states participated. Survey data were supplemented with electronic health record data.
resultsAmong respondents, 64% were or became up to date with screening within 3 months of their office visit. The main factor associated with being up to date was the length of the patient-clinician relationship (<6 months vs 5+ years: odds ratio [OR], 0.49; 95% CI, 0.30-0.80). Sharing the decision about screening options with the clinician was a predictor for being up to date compared with patients who made the decision for themselves (OR, 1.75; 95% CI, 1.27-2.44). Only 36% of patients reported being given a choice about screening options. Traditional factors like race, employment, insurance, and education were not associated with screening.
conclusionsHaving a long-term relationship with a primary care clinician and sharing decisions may be key drivers to ensure evidence-based preventive care for underserved 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.