ArticleCancer causes & control : CCC2023
Multi-level predictors of being up-to-date with colorectal cancer screening.
Article in Cancer causes & control : CCC, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Race, ethnicity, and prior colorectal screening test use in CONFIRM colonoscopy vs fecal immunochemical testing trial participants.JNCI cancer spectrum · 2026Trial
- Estimating the long-term health impact and program cost-effectiveness of providing direct screening services to low-income, medically underserved patients through the Colorectal Cancer Control Program (CRCCP).Cancer causes & control : CCC · 2025Article
- Area Socioeconomic Status and Early Onset Rectal Cancer in a Comprehensive Cancer Center: Evidence from Wisconsin.WMJ : official publication of the State Medical Society of Wisconsin · 2025Article
- Catchment area and cancer population health research through a novel population-based statewide database: a scoping review.JNCI cancer spectrum · 2024Article
- Individual and geospatial factors associated with receipt of colorectal cancer screening: a state-wide mixed-level analysis.Family medicine and community health · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeAssessing factors associated with being up-to-date with colorectal cancer (CRC) screening is important for identifying populations for which targeted interventions may be needed.
methodsThis study used Medicare and private insurance claims data for residents of North Carolina to identify up-to-date status in the 10th year of continuous enrollment in the claims data and in available subsequent years. USPSTF guidelines were used to define up-to-date status for multiple recommended modalities. Area Health Resources Files provided geographic and health care service provider data at the county level. A generalized estimating equation logistic regression model was used to examine the association between individual- and county-level characteristics and being up-to-date with CRC screening.
resultsFrom 2012-2016, 75% of the sample (n = 274,660) age 59-75 was up-to-date. We identified several individual- (e.g., sex, age, insurance type, recent visit with a primary care provider, distance to nearest endoscopy facility, insurance type) and county-level (e.g., percentage of residents with a high school education, without insurance, and unemployed) predictors of being up-to-date. For example, individuals had higher odds of being up-to-date if they were age 73-75 as compared to age 59 [OR: 1.12 (1.09, 1.15)], and if living in counties with more primary care physicians [OR: 1.03 (1.01, 1.06)].
conclusionThis study identified 12 individual- and county-level demographic characteristics related to being up-to-date with screening to inform how interventions may optimally be targeted.
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.