Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35559348›Full record

SynthesisFrontiers in medicine2022

Motivational Interviewing to Improve the Uptake of Colorectal Cancer Screening: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Novia Niannian Long, Michele Petrova Xin Ling Lau, Ainsley Ryan Yan Bin Lee, Natalie Elizabeth Yam, Nicholas Ye Kai Koh, Cyrus Su Hui Ho

Open access · goldAbstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Frontiers in medicine, 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
0.9field-weighted citation impact, top 24% of its field
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, 11 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Trial
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Review
  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

6 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Novia Niannian LongYong Loo Lin School of Medicine, National University of Singapore, Singapore, Singapore.
Michele Petrova Xin Ling LauYong Loo Lin School of Medicine, National University of Singapore, Singapore, Singapore.
Ainsley Ryan Yan Bin LeeYong Loo Lin School of Medicine, National University of Singapore, Singapore, Singapore.
Natalie Elizabeth YamYong Loo Lin School of Medicine, National University of Singapore, Singapore, Singapore.
Nicholas Ye Kai KohYong Loo Lin School of Medicine, National University of Singapore, Singapore, Singapore.
Cyrus Su Hui HoDepartment of Psychological Medicine, Yong Loo Lin School of Medicine, National University of Singapore, Singapore, Singapore.
National University of Singapore · SG

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Introduction: Colorectal cancer screening when done early can significantly reduce mortality. However, screening compliance is still lower than expected even in countries with established screening programs. Motivational interviewing is an approach that has been explored to promote behavioral change including screening compliance. This review synthesizes the efficacy of motivational interviewing in promoting uptake of colorectal screening modalities and is the only review so far that examines motivational interviewing for colorectal cancer screening alone. Methods: A systematic review and meta-analysis was conducted to examine the effects of motivational interviewing for colorectal cancer screening. PubMed, EMBASE, CENTRAL, PsycINFO, and CINAHL were searched to identify eligible studies from inception to June 2021 and selection criteria was defined. Risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane Risk of Bias 2.0 tool. The DerSimonian and Laird random effects model was used in the statistical analysis for studies included in the meta-analysis. Results: Fourteen studies from 14 randomized-controlled trials with a low to moderate risk of bias were analyzed. 8 studies in the systematic review showed that motivational interviewing is superior to a control group. Meta-analysis was conducted on 11 studies and showed that motivational interviewing is statistically significant in increasing colorectal cancer screening rates in both intention-to-treat and per-protocol analysis. Timing of data collection of colorectal cancer screening rates did not make a significant difference to the efficacy of motivational interviewing. Studies that offered and accepted a mixture of colorectal screening modalities such as colonoscopy and fecal immunochemical tests were significantly more likely to have favorable colorectal screening outcomes. Heterogeneity in intervention was noted between studies, specifically differences in the training of interventionists, intervention delivery and comparator components. Conclusion: Motivational interviewing is a tailored intervention demonstrating mixed evidence in improving colorectal cancer screening attendance amongst individuals. More research is needed to rigorously compare the effect of motivational interviewing alone vs. in combination with other screening promotion strategies to enhance colorectal cancer screening compliance.

Indexed as

behavioral sciencecancer screeningcolorectal cancermotivational interviewingpreventative medicinepsychologysystematic review

Identifiers

PMID35559348
PMCPMC9090440
OpenAlexW4280653332

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.