ArticlePloS one2021
Intentions to undergo primary screening with colonoscopy under the National Cancer Screening Program in Korea.
Article in PloS one, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 7 citations in OpenAlex.
- Sociocultural factors influencing women's adherence to colorectal, breast, and cervical cancer screening: a systematic review.BMC public health · 2025Pooled it
- Predicting the Determinants of Colorectal Cancer Screening Behaviors Using Protection Motivation Theory: A Cross-Sectional Partial Least Squares Structural Equation Modeling Analysis.Health science reports · 2025Article
- Article
- Accuracy of the Discriminatory Ability of Combined Fecal Microbiota Panel in the Early Detection of Patients with Colorectal Cancer.Journal of gastrointestinal cancer · 2024Article
- Socioeconomic inequality in organized and opportunistic screening for colorectal cancer: results from the Korean National Cancer Screening Survey, 2009-2021.Epidemiology and health · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundWe sought to investigate intentions to undergo primary screening with colonoscopy in an attempt to predict future colorectal cancer screening behaviors and the feasibility of implementing colonoscopy as the primary screening modality for colorectal cancer in the National Cancer Screening Program (NCSP) of Korea.
methodsData were obtained from a nationwide online survey conducted in 2018. The survey included a total of 800 eligible adults aged over 45 years. Study measures included the history of screening colonoscopy within the past 10 years and intentions to undergo primary screening with colonoscopy under the NCSP based on the five constructs of the Health Belief Model. Logistic regression analysis was conducted to examine factors associated with intentions to undergo primary screening with colonoscopy.
resultsApproximately 77% of the participants expressed strong willingness to undergo primary screening with colonoscopy under the NCSP. Higher perceived severity and perceived benefits were significantly associated with stronger intentions to undergo screening with colonoscopy (adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 1.53; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.10-2.14 and aOR, 2.74; 95% CI, 1.76-4.28, respectively). Greater perceived barriers (aOR, 0.65; 95% CI, 0.45-0.93) were significantly associated with weaker intentions. Cues to action elicited the strongest screening intentions (aOR, 8.28; 95% CI, 5.23-13.12).
conclusionThe current study findings highlight the need for increasing awareness of the severity of CRC and the benefits of colonoscopy screening. Family-orientated recommendation strategies and reducing complications may boost an individual's intentions to undergo colonoscopy.
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.