Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33622803›Full record

ArticleJournal of epidemiology and community health2021

Psychosocial consequences of invitation to colorectal cancer screening: a matched cohort study.

Jessica Malmqvist, Volkert Siersma, Mie Sara Hestbech, Dagný Rós Nicolaisdóttir, Christine Winther Bang, John Brodersen

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of epidemiology and community health, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing 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

5 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. 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.

Jessica MalmqvistThe Research Unit for General Practice and Section of General Practice, Department of Public Health, University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark jessica.malmqvist@sund.ku.dk.ORCID 0000-0002-9299-4369
Volkert SiersmaThe Research Unit for General Practice and Section of General Practice, Department of Public Health, University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark.ORCID 0000-0003-1941-2681
Mie Sara HestbechThe Research Unit for General Practice and Section of General Practice, Department of Public Health, University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark.ORCID 0000-0001-8247-3642
Dagný Rós NicolaisdóttirThe Research Unit for General Practice and Section of General Practice, Department of Public Health, University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark.
Christine Winther BangThe Research Unit for General Practice and Section of General Practice, Department of Public Health, University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark.
John BrodersenThe Research Unit for General Practice and Section of General Practice, Department of Public Health, University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark.ORCID 0000-0001-9369-3376

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundPsychosocial consequences of colorectal cancer (CRC) screening can arise anywhere in the screening cascade. Previous studies have investigated the consequences of participating in CRC screening; however, we have not identified any studies investigating the psychosocial consequences of receiving the invitation. Therefore, the objective of this study was to investigate psychosocial consequences of invitation to CRC screening.

methodsThe study was a longitudinal study performed in Region Zealand, Denmark. Participants included in this study were a random sample of 1000 CRC screening invitees and 1000 control persons, not invited to screening, matched in a 1:1 design on sex, age and municipality. We assessed psychosocial consequences before and after invitation in both study groups concurrently. The primary outcomes were psychosocial consequences measured with the condition-specific questionnaire Consequences of Screening in ColoRectal Cancer.

resultsPreinvitation response rates were 575 (57.5%) and 610 (61.0%) for the invitation group and control group, respectively. Postinvitation response rates were 442 (44.2%) for the invitation group and 561 (56.1%) for the control group.No differences in mean change in scale score were seen except for the scale 'Change in body perception'. The invitation group had a 0.39 lower change (99% CI (-0.78 to -0.004), p=0.009) in mean score than the control group in the direction of a less negative body perception after invitation.

conclusionsThis study did not identify an association between invitation to CRC screening and negative psychosocial consequences.

Indexed as

Colorectal NeoplasmsEarly Detection of CancerCohort StudiesHumansLongitudinal StudiesMass ScreeningOccult Bloodcancerlongitudinal studiesmedical screeningpsychological stresspublic health

Identifiers

PMID33622803
PMCPMC8372396

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.