Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36497719›Full record

ArticleInternational journal of environmental research and public health2022

Digital Health Information Provided by Public Health Stakeholders on Colorectal Cancer Screening: A Systematic Evaluation.

Claudia Hasenpusch, Henriette Faßhauer, Annemarie Minow, Lena Kannengießer, Ilona Hrudey, Svenja Walter, Christoph Stallmann, Enno Swart, Stefanie March

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in International journal of environmental research and public health, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing 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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. 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.

Claudia HasenpuschDepartment of Social Work, Health and Media, Magdeburg-Stendal University of Applied Sciences, 39114 Magdeburg, Germany.
Henriette FaßhauerDepartment of Social Work, Health and Media, Magdeburg-Stendal University of Applied Sciences, 39114 Magdeburg, Germany.
Annemarie MinowDepartment of Social Work, Health and Media, Magdeburg-Stendal University of Applied Sciences, 39114 Magdeburg, Germany.ORCID 0000-0002-7836-1127
Lena KannengießerDepartment of Social Work, Health and Media, Magdeburg-Stendal University of Applied Sciences, 39114 Magdeburg, Germany.
Ilona HrudeyInstitute of Social Medicine and Health Systems Research, Medical Faculty, Otto von Guericke University Magdeburg, 39120 Magdeburg, Germany.ORCID 0000-0003-3955-6842
Svenja WalterInstitute of Social Medicine and Health Systems Research, Medical Faculty, Otto von Guericke University Magdeburg, 39120 Magdeburg, Germany.
Christoph StallmannInstitute of Social Medicine and Health Systems Research, Medical Faculty, Otto von Guericke University Magdeburg, 39120 Magdeburg, Germany.ORCID 0000-0001-8144-5711
Enno SwartInstitute of Social Medicine and Health Systems Research, Medical Faculty, Otto von Guericke University Magdeburg, 39120 Magdeburg, Germany.
Stefanie MarchDepartment of Social Work, Health and Media, Magdeburg-Stendal University of Applied Sciences, 39114 Magdeburg, Germany.ORCID 0000-0002-2809-6767

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

In the federal state of Germany, Saxony-Anhalt, colorectal cancer is the second most frequent cause of death among cancer patients. In order to identify cancer precursors early, colorectal cancer screenings are essential. In this context, health information contributes to informing individuals and imparting them with necessary knowledge to make a decision about (non-)utilization of preventive services. Numerous public health stakeholders (e.g., statutory health insurances) provide health information. This study aimed to evaluate the quality of web-based health information offered by public health stakeholders in Saxony-Anhalt, Germany. A systematic evaluation was used. A search was performed using pre-defined eligibility criteria and search terms. Two independent reviewers assessed the search results based on seven main categories (60 items) developed by the study team in line with the "Guideline Evidence-based Health Information". In total, 37 materials from 16 different stakeholders were included and yielded a "mediocre quality" (median = 69%). The materials had only partially fulfilled the requirements of national recommendations for evidence-based health information. Access to digital health information regarding colon cancer screening was unsatisfactory, especially for individuals with auditory or visual impairments, due to use of inappropriate communication technologies. Further efforts are required to improve digital health information about colorectal cancer screening.

Indexed as

Colorectal NeoplasmsEarly Detection of CancerGermanyHumansPublic Healthcancer preventioncolorectal cancerhealth informationInternetscreeningsystematic evaluation

Identifiers

PMID36497719
PMCPMC9740647

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.