ArticleHealth economics2021
Effects of the Colorectal Cancer Control Program.
Article in Health economics, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers, 2 of them syntheses 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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Human papillomavirus (HPV) infection and prevalence of colorectal cancer: an updated systematic review and meta-analysis of global data.International journal of surgery (London, England) · 2026Pooled it
- Global, regional, national burden of colorectal cancer from 1990 to 2021, with projections of incidence to 2050: a systematic analysis of the global burden of disease study 2021.Frontiers in oncology · 2025Pooled it
- Estimating the long-term health impact and program cost-effectiveness of providing direct screening services to low-income, medically underserved patients through the Colorectal Cancer Control Program (CRCCP).Cancer causes & control : CCC · 2025Article
- Individual and geospatial factors associated with receipt of colorectal cancer screening: a state-wide mixed-level analysis.Family medicine and community health · 2024Article
- The 2020 US cancer screening deficit and the timing of adults' most recent screen: a population-based cross-sectional study.Family medicine and community health · 2023Article
- Value of faecal exfoliated cells in colorectal tumour screening using SDC2 methylation test.Annals of medicine · 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
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Although colorectal cancer (CRC) screening is highly effective, screening rates lag far below recommended levels, particularly for low-income people. The Colorectal Cancer Control Program (CRCCP) funded $100 million in competitively awarded grants to 25 states from 2009-2015 to increase CRC screening rates among low-income, uninsured populations, in part by directly providing and paying for screening services. Using data from the 2001-2015 Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System (BRFSS) and a difference-in-differences strategy, we find no effects of CRCCP on the use of relatively cheap fecal occult blood tests (FOBT). We do, however, find that the CRCCP significantly increased the likelihood that uninsured 50-64-year-olds report ever having a relatively expensive endoscopic CRC screening (sigmoidoscopy or colonoscopy) by 2.9 percentage points, or 10.7%. These effects are larger for women, minorities, and individuals who did not undertake other types of preventive care. We do not find that the CRCCP led to significant changes in CRC cancer detection. Our results indicate that the CRCCP was effective at increasing CRC screening rates among the most vulnerable.
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.