Trial reportContemporary clinical trials2021
A stepped randomized trial to promote colorectal cancer screening in a nationwide sample of U.S. Veterans.
Trial report in Contemporary clinical trials, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper, 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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
- Motivational Interviewing to Improve the Uptake of Colorectal Cancer Screening: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Frontiers in medicine · 2022Pooled it
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors at 8 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundColorectal cancer (CRC) screening (CRCS) facilitates early detection and lowers CRC mortality.
objectivesTo increase CRCS in a randomized trial of stepped interventions. Step 1 compared three modes of delivery of theory-informed minimal cue interventions. Step 2 was designed to more intensively engage those not completing CRCS after Step 1.
methodsRecruitment packets (60,332) were mailed to a random sample of individuals with a record of U.S. military service during the Vietnam-era. Respondents not up-to-date with CRCS were randomized to one of four Step 1 groups: automated telephone, telephone, letter, or survey-only control. Those not completing screening after Step 1 were randomized to one of three Step 2 groups: automated motivational interviewing (MI) call, counselor-delivered MI call, or Step 2 control. Intention-to-treat (ITT) analyses assessed CRCS on follow-up surveys mailed after each step.
resultsAfter Step 1 (n = 1784), CRCS was higher in the letter, telephone, and automated telephone groups (by 1%, 5%, 7%) than in survey-only controls (43%), although differences were not statistically significant. After Step 2 (n = 516), there were nonsignificant increases in CRCS in the two intervention groups compared with the controls. CRCS following any combination of stepped interventions overall was 7% higher (P = 0.024) than in survey-only controls (55.6%).
conclusionsIn a nationwide study of Veterans, CRCS after each of two stepped interventions of varying modes of delivery did not differ significantly from that in controls. However, combined overall, the sequence of stepped interventions significantly increased CRCS.
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.