Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35443033›Full record

ArticleCancer epidemiology, biomarkers & prevention : a publication of the American Association for Cancer Research, cosponsored by the American Society of Preventive Oncology2022

Mapping the Lay of the Land: Using Interactive Network Analytic Tools for Collaboration in Rural Cancer Prevention and Control.

Bobbi J Carothers, Peg Allen, Callie Walsh-Bailey, Dixie Duncan, Rebeca Vanderburg Pacheco, Karen R White, Debra Jeckstadt, Edward Tsai, Ross C Brownson

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Cancer epidemiology, biomarkers & prevention : a publication of the American Association for Cancer Research, cosponsored by the American Society of Preventive Oncology, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing 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

6 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Nurturing care assets for food security: a community asset mapping approach.Journal of health, population, and nutrition · 2024
    Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. 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

9 authors.

Bobbi J CarothersCenter for Public Health Systems Science, Brown School, Washington University in St. Louis, St. Louis, Missouri.ORCID 0000-0001-6050-9712
Peg AllenPrevention Research Center, Brown School, Washington University in St. Louis, St. Louis, Missouri.ORCID 0000-0001-7000-796X
Callie Walsh-BaileyPrevention Research Center, Brown School, Washington University in St. Louis, St. Louis, Missouri.
Dixie DuncanPrevention Research Center, Brown School, Washington University in St. Louis, St. Louis, Missouri.
Rebeca Vanderburg PachecoButler County Community Resource Council, Poplar Bluff, Missouri.
Karen R WhiteMissouri Highlands Health Care, Ellington, Missouri.ORCID 0000-0002-9024-3879
Debra JeckstadtMissouri Ozarks Community Health, Ava, Missouri.
Edward TsaiDivision of Public Health Sciences, Department of Surgery, Washington University School of Medicine, Washington University in St. Louis, St. Louis, Missouri.
Ross C BrownsonPrevention Research Center, Brown School, Washington University in St. Louis, St. Louis, Missouri.

Funding

Washington University Center for Cellular ImagingP30CA091842 · NCI · WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY · PI TIMOTHY J. EBERLEIN · 2001 to 2026
$128.0M
WU INSTITUTE OF CLINICAL AND TRANSLATIONAL SCIENCESUL1TR002345 · NCATS · WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY · PI William G. Powderly · 2017 to 2026
$97.8M
Washington University Implementation Science Center for Cancer Control (WU-ISCCC)P50CA244431 · NCI · WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY · PI BROWNSON, ROSS C, COLDITZ, GRAHAM A. · 2019 to 2023
$8.0M
The Retain Study: Recruiting and Engaging with Technology Older Adults to Increase NeurocognitionU48DP006395 · DP · WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY · PI BROWNSON, ROSS C · 2018 to 2023
$4.8M
Postdoctoral Training in Cancer Prevention and ControlT32CA190194 · NCI · WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY · PI GRAHAM A. COLDITZ, AIMEE S JAMES · 2014 to 2026
$4.7M
Multilevel Approaches for Promoting Physical Activity in Rural CommunitiesR01CA211323 · NCI · WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY · PI BROWNSON, ROSS C · 2017 to 2021
$2.9M
Enhancing Evidence-based Diabetes Control Among Local Health DepartmentsR01DK109913 · NIDDK · WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY · PI BROWNSON, ROSS C · 2016 to 2020
$2.9M
Training LEADers to Accelerate Global Mental Health Disparities in Research (LEAD)T37MD014218 · NIMHD · WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY · PI CAVAZOS-REHG, PATRICIA A, SSEWAMALA, FRED M · 2019 to 2023
$1.3M
ACL HHS U48DP006395NCATS NIH HHS UL1 TR002345NCCDPHP CDC HHS U48 DP006395NCI NIH HHS P30 CA091842NCI NIH HHS P50 CA244431NCI NIH HHS R01 CA211323NCI NIH HHS T32 CA190194NIDDK NIH HHS R01 DK109913NIMHD NIH HHS T37 MD014218
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundCancer mortality rates in the United States are higher in rural than urban areas, especially for colorectal cancer. Modifiable cancer risks (e.g., tobacco use, obesity) are more prevalent among U.S. rural than urban residents. Social network analyses are common, yet rural informal collaborative networks for cancer prevention and control and practitioner uses of network findings are less well understood.

methodsIn five service areas in rural Missouri and Illinois, we conducted a network survey of informal multisector networks among agencies that address cancer risk (N = 152 individuals). The survey asked about contact, collaborative activities, and referrals. We calculated descriptive network statistics and disseminated network visualizations with rural agencies through infographics and interactive Network Navigator platforms. We also collected feedback on uses of network findings from agency staff (N = 14).

resultsService areas had more connections (average degree) for exchanging information than for more time-intensive collaborative activities of co-developing and sustaining ongoing services and programs, and co-developing and sharing resources. On average, collaborative activities were not dependent on just a few agencies to bridge gaps to hold networks together. Users found the network images and information useful for identifying gaps, planning which relationships to establish or enhance to strengthen certain collaborative activities and cross-referrals, and showing network strengths to current and potential funders.

conclusionsRural informal cancer prevention and control networks in this study are highly connected and largely decentralized. IMPACT: Disseminating network findings help ensure usefulness to rural health and social service practitioners who address cancer risks.

Indexed as

NeoplasmsRural PopulationHumansReferral and ConsultationUnited States

Identifiers

PMID35443033
PMCPMC9167755

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.