Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34002407›Full record

ArticleThe Journal of rural health : official journal of the American Rural Health Association and the National Rural Health Care Association2022

Perspectives on self-sampling for cancer screening among rural and urban women: Multilevel factors related to acceptability.

Kelsey C Stoltzfus, Madyson L Popalis, Paul L Reiter, Jennifer L Moss

Open access · greenAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in The Journal of rural health : official journal of the American Rural Health Association and the National Rural Health Care Association, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
0.3field-weighted citation impact, top 42% 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

4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 6 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Comparative effectiveness of two interventions to increase colorectal cancer screening among females living in the rural Midwest.The Journal of rural health : official journal of the American Rural Health Association and the National Rural Health Care Association · 2024
    Trial
  3. Article
  4. 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

4 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Kelsey C StoltzfusDepartment of Family and Community Medicine, Penn State College of Medicine, The Pennsylvania State University, Hershey, Pennsylvania, USA.ORCID 0000-0001-7696-7697
Madyson L PopalisDepartment of Family and Community Medicine, Penn State College of Medicine, The Pennsylvania State University, Hershey, Pennsylvania, USA.
Paul L ReiterCollege of Public Health, The Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio, USA.
Jennifer L MossDepartment of Family and Community Medicine, Penn State College of Medicine, The Pennsylvania State University, Hershey, Pennsylvania, USA.
Pennsylvania State University · USThe Ohio State University · US

Funding

Penn State Clinical and Translational Science InstituteUL1TR002014 · NCATS · PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV HERSHEY MED CTR · PI KRASCHNEWSKI, JENNIFER L. · 2016 to 2025
$33.7M
Overcoming barriers to cancer screening among women living in rural and segregated communitiesK22CA225705 · NCI · PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV HERSHEY MED CTR · PI MOSS, JENNIFER LINDSAY · 2019 to 2022
$629k
A novel use of web-based software to efficiently triage pre-surgical patients basR44TR000045 · NCATS · MEDSLEUTH, INC. · PI KALAMAS, ALICIA GRUBER · 2012 to 2012
$546k
NCATS NIH HHS R44 TR000045NCATS NIH HHS UL1 TR002014NCI NIH HHS K22 CA225705
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeSelf-sampling tests may be used to overcome barriers to screening that are more prevalent in rural populations compared to urban populations. This study aims to qualitatively examine the attitudes toward established and novel self-sampling tests for cervical and colorectal cancer among women, comparing themes from rural versus urban areas.

methodsWe recruited women (ages 45-65) from 28 counties in Pennsylvania. Four focus groups were conducted with women from metropolitan counties, and 7 focus groups were conducted with women from nonmetropolitan counties. A brief survey was conducted prior to the focus group regarding general health and willingness to complete self-sampling tests for cervical and colorectal cancer.

findingsWe identified 3 themes about the potential for self-sampling for cancer screening: advantages and disadvantages of self-sampling compared to traditional testing, impact of self-sampling on patient interactions with their health care providers/clinics, and implications for improving/worsening access to quality health care services. We detected differences in responses from rural versus urban participants in the potential impact of self-sampling for cancer screening.

conclusionsThere are several barriers and facilitators at the individual, interpersonal, and organizational levels that influence the feasibility of implementing self-sampling for cancer screening in routine clinical practice. Rural participants face unique barriers to cancer screening across all levels. These findings can be used to guide interventions aimed at increasing the use of self-sampling methods.

Indexed as

Colorectal NeoplasmsPapillomavirus InfectionsUterine Cervical NeoplasmsAgedEarly Detection of CancerFemaleHumansMass ScreeningMiddle AgedRural PopulationSpecimen Handlingcervical cancercolorectal cancerscreeningself-sampling

Identifiers

PMID34002407
PMCPMC8599503
OpenAlexW3162355233

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
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.