ArticleJournal of cancer education : the official journal of the American Association for Cancer Education2022
An Online Survey and Focus Groups for Promoting Cancer Prevention Measures.
Article in Journal of cancer education : the official journal of the American Association for Cancer Education, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
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.
- Chronic Conditions and Racially Biased Healthcare Experiences Impact Breast Cancer and Colorectal Cancer Screening Across Racial/Ethnic Groups.Journal of racial and ethnic health disparities · 2026Article
- Breast Disease Patterns Among Patients Presenting for Mammography in a Major Hospital in the Volta Region of Ghana: A Five-Year Descriptive Retrospective Study.International journal of breast cancer · 2025Article
- Barriers and facilitators of colorectal cancer screening using the 5As framework: A systematic review of US studies.Preventive medicine reports · 2023Review
- Factors associated with breast cancer screening services use among women in the United States: An application of the Andersen's Behavioral Model of Health Services Use.Preventive medicine · 2023Article
- Assessment of Colorectal Cancer Screening Disparities in U.S. Men and Women Using a Demographically Representative Sample.Cancer research communications · 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
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
In order to design a cancer prevention promotion program in the region, suggestions were solicited at a medical center. We hypothesized that a majority would be native to state, and would be able to articulate about the barriers that may exist. Through online survey and focus groups, suggestions were sought, and the knowledge and the compliance with cancer prevention recommendations were assessed to determine the participants' qualifications as potential educators. Sixty-five point two percent of participants (n = 1018) graduated from high school in Arkansas. The most commonly given suggestions were to provide education to increase awareness, to use social media for promotion, to improve access, and to reduce costs. Self-reported adherence rates to breast, cervical, and colorectal cancer screening were 82.6% (n = 954), 75.8% (n = 541), and 76.7% (n = 453), respectively. Having a personal history of cancer significantly increased colorectal cancer screening uptake (p = 0.04), but paradoxically decreased mammography uptake (p = 0.007). Salary of $40,000 and more and having a Bachelor's degree or higher were associated with higher compliance of Papanicolaou test only (p = 0.007 and p = 0.001, respectively). A majority (67.7%, n = 1056) of respondents expressed willingness to contribute to promoting cancer prevention measures, and 38.3% (n = 559) were willing to participate in focus groups. However, only 6.3% (n = 35) actually participated. The participants' knowledge and compliance appeared to be sufficient, but their follow through in focus group participation was poor.
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.