ArticlePreventive medicine reports2023
Association between the colorectal cancer screening status of primary care physicians and their patients: Evidence from the Swiss Sentinella practice-based research network.
Article in Preventive medicine reports, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- Inter-physician heterogeneity in colorectal cancer screening participation in France: a study based on the French National Health Data System.Archives of public health = Archives belges de sante publique · 2026Article
- Cooking for Health: a comprehensive narrative review of Culinary Medicine as an educational tool in medical training in Brazil and Globally.Archives of endocrinology and metabolism · 2024Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Swiss health insurance reimburses screening for colorectal cancer (CRC) with either colonoscopy or fecal occult blood test (FOBT). Studies have documented the association between a physician's personal preventive health practices and the practices they recommend to their patients. We explored the association between CRC testing status of primary care physicians (PCP) and the testing rate among their patients. From May 2017 to September 2017, we invited 129 PCP who belonged to the Swiss Sentinella Network to disclose their CRC test status and whether they had been tested with colonoscopy or FOBT/other methods. Each participating PCP collected demographic data and CRC testing status from 40 consecutive 50- to 75-year-old patients. We analyzed data from 69 (54%) PCP 50 years or older and 2623 patients. Most PCP were men (81%); 75% were tested for CRC (67% with colonoscopy and 9% with FOBT). Mean patient age was 63; 50% were women; 43% had been tested for CRC (38%, 1000/2623 with colonoscopy and 5%, 131/2623, with FOBT or other non-endoscopic test). In multivariate adjusted regression models that clustered patients by PCP, the proportion of patients tested for CRC was higher among PCP tested for CRC than among PCP not tested (47% vs 32%; OR 1.97; 95% CI 1.36 to 2.85). Since PCP CRC testing status is associated with their patients CRC testing rates, it informs future interventions that will alert PCPs to the influence of their health decisions and motivate them to further incorporate the values and preferences of their patients in their practice.
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.