ArticlePreventing chronic disease2022
Factors Associated With Clinician Recommendations for Colorectal Cancer Screening Among Average-Risk Patients: Data From a National Survey.
Article in Preventing chronic disease, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 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
11 citing papers in PubMed.
- Clinical Notes Contain Limited Documentation of Shared Decision Making for Colorectal Cancer Screening Decisions.Medical decision making : an international journal of the Society for Medical Decision Making · 2025Trial
- Adherence to Obstetrician-/Gynecologist-Ordered Multi-target Stool DNA Test Screening and Follow-Up Colonoscopy: A National Multi-payer Study of US Women.Advances in therapy · 2026Article
- Cancer Screening in Appalachia: A Common-Sense Approach.International journal of behavioral medicine · 2025Article
- Changes in Colorectal Cancer Screening Modalities Among Insured Individuals.JAMA network open · 2025Article
- Timing and Frequency of Surveillance Colonoscopies After Resection for Colorectal Cancer in Queensland, Australia: A Retrospective 10-Year Analysis.JGH open : an open access journal of gastroenterology and hepatology · 2025Article
- A qualitative study of a new metric for estimating early-onset colorectal cancer risk in male veterans: "Colon Age".BMC primary care · 2025Article
- A socioecological taxonomy of determinants to colorectal cancer screening in black men: Insights from a mixed-methods systematic review.Preventive medicine reports · 2025Review
- Limited English proficiency and reported receipt of colorectal cancer screening among adults 45-75 in 2019 and 2021.Preventive medicine reports · 2024Article
- Changes in uptake of stool-based colorectal cancer screening during the Covid-19 pandemic.Cancer causes & control : CCC · 2023Article
- Evaluation of Colonoscopy and Sigmoidoscopy Utilization for Colorectal Cancer Screening in Georgia, USA.Current oncology (Toronto, Ont.) · 2022Article
- Clinical Diagnosis Codes Identify Patients Unlikely to Receive Orders for Fecal Immunochemical Tests.Cancer control : journal of the Moffitt Cancer CenterObservational
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionColorectal cancer (CRC) screening among average-risk patients is underused in the US. Clinician recommendation is strongly associated with CRC screening completion. To inform interventions that improve CRC screening uptake among average-risk patients, we examined clinicians' routine recommendations of 7 guideline-recommended screening methods and factors associated with these recommendations.
methodsWe conducted an online survey in November and December 2019 among a sample of primary care clinicians (PCCs) and gastroenterologists (GIs) from a panel of US clinicians. Clinicians reported whether they routinely recommend each screening method, screening method intervals, and patient age at which they stop recommending screening. We also measured the influence of various factors on screening recommendations.
resultsNearly all 814 PCCs (99%) and all 159 GIs (100%) reported that they routinely recommend colonoscopy for average-risk patients, followed by stool-based tests (more than two-thirds of PCCs and GIs). Recommendation of other visualization-based methods was less frequent (PCCs, 26%-35%; GIs, 30%-41%). A sizable proportion of clinicians reported guideline-discordant screening intervals and age to stop screening. Guidelines and clinical evidence were most frequently reported as very influential to clinician recommendations. Factors associated with routine recommendation of each screening method included clinician-perceived effectiveness of the method, clinician familiarity with the method, Medicare coverage, clinical capacity, and patient adherence.
conclusionClinician education is needed to improve knowledge, familiarity, and experience with guideline-recommended screening methods with the goal of effectively engaging patients in informed decision making for CRC screening.
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.