ArticleBMC cancer2022
A dyadic survey study of partner engagement in and patient receipt of guideline-recommended colorectal cancer surveillance.
Article in BMC cancer, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
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 at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundWe investigated whether partner (spouse or intimate partner) engagement in colorectal cancer (CRC) surveillance is associated with patient receipt of surveillance.
methodsFrom 2019 to 2020 we surveyed Stage III CRC survivors diagnosed 2014-2018 at an academic cancer center, a community oncology practice and the Georgia SEER registry, and their partners. Partner engagement was measured across 3 domains: Informed about; Involved in; and Aware of patient preferences around surveillance. We evaluated bivariate associations between domains of partner engagement and independent partner variables. Analysis of variance and multivariable logistic regression were used to compare domains of engagement with patient-reported receipt of surveillance.
results501 patients responded (51% response rate); 428 had partners. 311 partners responded (73% response rate). Partners were engaged across all domains. Engagement varied by sociodemographics. Greater partner involvement was associated with decreased odds of receipt of composite surveillance (OR 0.67, 95% CI 0.48-0.93) and trended towards significance for decreased odds of receipt of endoscopy (OR 0.60, 95% CI 0.34-1.03) and CEA (OR 0.75, 95% CI 0.55-1.04). Greater partner awareness was associated with increased odds of patients' receipt of endoscopy (OR 2.18, 95% CI 1.15-4.12) and trended towards significance for increased odds of receipt of composite surveillance (OR 1.30, 95% CI 0.91-2.04).
conclusionPartners are engaged (informed, involved, and aware) in CRC surveillance. Future research to develop dyadic interventions that capitalize on the positive aspects of partner engagement may help partners effectively engage in surveillance to improve patient care.
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.