Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34230556›Full record

Trial reportScientific reports2021

The effect of deadlines on cancer screening completion: a randomized controlled trial.

Alicea Lieberman, Ayelet Gneezy, Emily Berry, Stacie Miller, Mark Koch, Keith E Argenbright, Samir Gupta

Registry-linked trialAbstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in Scientific reports, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT06929481 (Screening With Liquid Biopsies to Address Colorectal Cancer Inequities), which is not on this map. Cited by 12 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
12citing 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.

NCT06929481 naactive not recruitingnot on this mapstarted 2025, after this paper: background citation

Screening With Liquid Biopsies to Address Colorectal Cancer Inequities

TypeinterventionalSponsorUniversity of California, San DiegoRan2025 to 2026Enrolled340ConditionsColorectal Cancer Screening, Colorectal Cancer (CRC)ArmsCell free DNA (cfDNA) blood test, At home Fecal Immunochemical Test (FIT) or Colonoscopy
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

12 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Trial
  3. Reminders, but not monetary incentives, increase COVID-19 booster uptake.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2023
    Trial
  4. Trial
  5. Article
  6. Evaluating colonoscopy quality by performing provider type.Journal of the National Cancer Institute · 2024
    Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Financial Literacy, Financial Education, and Cancer Screening Behavior: Evidence from Japan.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2022
    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

7 authors.

Alicea LiebermanAnderson School of Management, University of California, Los Angeles, Los Angeles, CA, USA. Alicea.lieberman@anderson.ucla.edu.
Ayelet GneezyRady School of Management, University of California, San Diego, La Jolla, CA, USA.
Emily BerryUniversity of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Moncrief Cancer Institute, Fort Worth, TX, USA.
Stacie MillerUniversity of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Moncrief Cancer Institute, Fort Worth, TX, USA.
Mark KochDepartment of Family Medicine, John Peter Smith Health Network, Fort Worth, TX, USA.
Keith E ArgenbrightUniversity of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Moncrief Cancer Institute, Fort Worth, TX, USA.
Samir GuptaSan Diego Veterans Affairs Healthcare System, San Diego, CA, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Cancer is the second leading cause of death in the United States. Although screening facilitates prevention and early detection and is one of the most effective approaches to reducing cancer mortality, participation is low-particularly among underserved populations. In a large, preregistered field experiment (n = 7711), we tested whether deadlines-both with and without monetary incentives tied to them-increase colorectal cancer (CRC) screening. We found that all screening invitations with an imposed deadline increased completion, ranging from 2.5% to 7.3% relative to control (ps < .004). Most importantly, individuals who received a short deadline with no incentive were as likely to complete screening (9.7%) as those whose invitation included a deadline coupled with either a small (9.1%) or large declining financial incentive (12.0%; ps = .57 and .04, respectively). These results suggest that merely imposing deadlines-especially short ones-can significantly increase CRC screening completion, and may also have implications for other forms of cancer screening.

Indexed as

Early Detection of CancerColorectal NeoplasmsFecesFemaleHumansImmunohistochemistryMaleMiddle AgedTime Factors

Identifiers

PMID34230556
PMCPMC8260724

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

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.