Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37307035›Full record

ArticleJMIR formative research2023

Gender Effects on the Impact of Colorectal Cancer Risk Calculators on Screening Intentions: Experimental Study.

Jungmin Lee, Mark Keil, Jong Seok Lee, Aaron Baird, Hyoung-Yong Choi

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in JMIR formative research, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
0.2field-weighted citation impact, top 34% 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

0 citing papers in PubMed, 1 citations in OpenAlex.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

5 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.

Jungmin Lee *J Mack Robinson College of Business, Georgia State University, Atlanta, GA, United States.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7657-9184
Mark Keil *J Mack Robinson College of Business, Georgia State University, Atlanta, GA, United States.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9203-2277
Jong Seok Lee *Haslam College of Business, The University of Tennessee, Knoxville, TN, United States.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9849-2466
Aaron Baird *J Mack Robinson College of Business, Georgia State University, Atlanta, GA, United States.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5620-2926
Hyoung-Yong Choi *HUFS Business School, Hankuk University of Foreign Studies, Seoul, Republic of Korea.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0809-7014
Georgia State University · USHankuk University of Foreign Studies · KR

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundAccording to a 2020 study by the American Cancer Society, colorectal cancer (CRC) represents the third leading cause of cancer both in incidence and death in the United States. Nonetheless, CRC screening remains lower than that for other high-risk cancers such as breast and cervical cancer. Risk calculators are increasingly being used to promote cancer awareness and improve compliance with CRC screening tests. However, research concerning the effects of CRC risk calculators on the intention to undergo CRC screening has been limited. Moreover, some studies have found the impacts of CRC risk calculators to be inconsistent, reporting that receiving personalized assessments from such calculators lowers people's risk perception.

objectiveThe objective of this study is to examine the effect of using CRC risk calculators on individuals' intentions to undergo CRC screening. In addition, this study aims to examine the mechanisms through which using CRC risk calculators might influence individuals' intentions to undergo CRC screening. Specifically, this study focuses on the role of perceived susceptibility to CRC as a potential mechanism mediating the effect of using CRC risk calculators. Finally, this study examines how the effect of using CRC risk calculators on individuals' intentions to undergo CRC screening may vary by gender.

methodsWe recruited a total of 128 participants through Amazon Mechanical Turk who live in the United States, have health insurance, and are in the age group of 45 to 85 years. All participants answered questions needed as input for the CRC risk calculator but were randomly assigned to treatment (CRC risk calculator results immediately received) and control (CRC risk calculator results made available after the experiment ended) groups. The participants in both groups answered a series of questions regarding demographics, perceived susceptibility to CRC, and their intention to get screened.

resultsWe found that using CRC risk calculators (ie, answering questions needed as input and receiving calculator results) has a positive effect on intentions to undergo CRC screening, but only for men. For women, using CRC risk calculators has a negative effect on their perceived susceptibility to CRC, which in turn reduces the intention to sign up for CRC screening. Additional simple slope and subgroup analyses confirm that the effect of perceived susceptibility on CRC screening intention is moderated by gender.

conclusionsThis study shows that using CRC risk calculators can increase individuals' intentions to undergo CRC screening, but only for men. For women, using CRC risk calculators can reduce their intentions to undergo CRC screening, as it reduces their perceived susceptibility to CRC. Given these mixed results, although CRC risk calculators can be a useful source of information on one's CRC risk, patients should be discouraged from relying solely on them to inform decisions regarding CRC screening.

Indexed as

cancercolorectalgenderintentiononcologyperceived susceptibilityperceptionpreventionrandomizationrandomizedriskrisk calculatorscreeningsusceptibility

Identifiers

PMID37307035
PMCPMC10361457
OpenAlexW4362504441

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.