Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34427182›Full record

ArticleeLife2021

Cancer risk perception and physician communication behaviors on cervical cancer and colorectal cancer screening.

Diane M Harper, Madiha Tariq, Asraa Alhawli, Nadia Syed, Minal Patel, Ken Resnicow

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in eLife, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 17 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
17citing 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.

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

17 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Looking Back: The Contested Whiteness of Arab Identity.American journal of public health · 2022
    Article
  15. Observational
  16. Article
  17. 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

6 authors.

Diane M HarperDepartment of Family Medicine, University of Michigan School of Medicine, Ann Arbor, United States.ORCID 0000-0001-7648-883X
Madiha TariqArab Community Center for Economic and Social Services (ACCESS), Dearborn, United States.
Asraa AlhawliArab Community Center for Economic and Social Services (ACCESS), Dearborn, United States.
Nadia SyedArab Community Center for Economic and Social Services (ACCESS), Dearborn, United States.
Minal PatelDepartment of Health Behavior & Health Education, University of Michigan School of Public, Ann Arbor, United States.
Ken ResnicowOutreach and Health Disparities Research, University of Michigan Rogel Cancer Center, Ann Arbor, United States.

Funding

XenograftP30CA046592 · NCI · UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN AT ANN ARBOR · PI Eric R. Fearon · 1988 to 2026
$178.2M
Michigan Institute for Clinical and Health Research (MICHR)UL1TR002240 · NCATS · UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN AT ANN ARBOR · PI LUMENG, JULIE C, MASHOUR, GEORGE ALEXANDER · 2017 to 2022
$54.9M
NCATS NIH HHS UL1 TR002240NCI NIH HHS P30 CA046592
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: Women 50-65 years of age have the lowest cervical and colorectal cancer (CRC) screening rates among ages recommended for screening. The primary aim of this work is to determine how cancer risk perceptions and provider communication behaviors, in addition to known demographic factors, influence the uptake of both cervical and CRC screening or a single screen among women in southeast Michigan. Methods: Fourteen health services and communication behavior questions were adapted from the Health Information National Trends Survey (HINTS) and administered to a multiethnic sample of adults in southeast Michigan. The outcome variable was self-reported up-to-date cervical cancer and/or CRC screening as defined by the United States Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF). Demographic and cancer risk/communication behavior responses of the four screening populations (both tests, one test, no tests) were analyzed with multinomial regression for all comparisons. Results: Of the 394 respondents, 54% were up to date for both cervical and CRC screening, 21% were up to date with only cervical cancer screening and 12% were up to date for only CRC screening. Of the 14 risk perception and communication behavior questions, only 'Did your primary care physician (PCP) involve you in the decisions about your health care as much as you wanted?' was significantly associated with women having both screens compared to only cervical cancer screening (aOR 1.67; 95% CI: 1.08, 2.57). The multivariate model showed age, and Middle East and North African (MENA) ethnicity and Black race, in addition to PCP-patient dyad decision-making to be associated with the cancer screenings women completed. Conclusions: Optimizing PCP-patient decision-making in health care may increase opportunities for both cervical cancer and CRC screening either in the office or by self-sampling. Understanding the effects of age and the different interventional strategies needed for MENA women compared to Black women will inform future intervention trials aimed to increase both cancer screenings. Funding: This work was supported by NIH through the Michigan Institute for Clinical and Health Research UL1TR002240 and by NCI through The University of Michigan Rogel Cancer Center P30CA046592-29-S4 grants.

Indexed as

Colorectal NeoplasmsCross-Sectional StudiesEarly Detection of CancerFemaleHealth CommunicationHumansMass ScreeningMichiganMiddle AgedPatient Acceptance of Health CarePerceptionPhysiciansRisk FactorsSocioeconomic FactorsUterine Cervical Neoplasmscervical cancer screeningcolorectal cancer screeningepidemiologyfatalismglobal healthhumanMENAphysician communicationwomen

Identifiers

PMID34427182
PMCPMC8384416

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.