ArticleAsian Pacific journal of cancer prevention : APJCP2023
Colorectal Cancer (CRC) Screening Literacy and Facilitators Related to a Free Screening Program in Thailand.
Article in Asian Pacific journal of cancer prevention : APJCP, 2023. 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, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
- Determinants of Colorectal Cancer: Risk Factors, Knowledge, and Diagnosis in a Cross-Sectional Study of Saudi Adults.Cancer control : journal of the Moffitt Cancer CenterArticle
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 at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveThis study aimed to evaluate CRC screening literacy and to determine the association between demographic characteristics and levels of CRC screening literacy and facilitators motivating participation.
methodsThis cross-sectional study was carried out with 1,272 Thai citizens aged 50-70 years consenting to complete the screening protocol. Data were collected at the final visit by a self-reported questionnaire which was developed and validated using I-CVI=1. Difficulty of CRC screening knowledge dimension was tested by KR20, Cronbach's alpha 0.49.
resultsThe majority of participants, 834 (65.6%) had sufficient CRC screening literacy and association between characteristics and levels of CRC screening literacy was not different. Comparing between characteristics and facilitators showed significant differences in trusting healthcare providers, perceiving harmless procedures, having constipation and time available. By married and own income participants exhibited lower trust in healthcare providers, 68% (OR 0.32, 95%CI 0.14 - 0.73) and 59% (OR 0.41, 95%CI 0.19 - 0.95), respectively. Married individuals perceived the procedures of screening involved higher harm, 32% (OR 0.68, 95%CI 0.45 - 0.99). Female and age over 60 with constipation constituted higher screening, 1.9 fold (OR 1.93, 95%CI 1.44 - 2.60) and 1.4 fold (OR 1.44, 95%CI 1.09 - 1.90). Though time available, age over 60 was lower screening 56% (OR 0.44, 95%CI 0.24 - 0.80), while own income and income more than 30,000 THB/month participants constituted higher screening 15 fold (OR 15.14, 95%CI 4.72 - 48.56) and 2.5 fold (OR 2.50, 95%CI 1.50 - 4.18), respectively.
conclusionCRC screening literacy of participants was high. The association between characteristics and CRC screening literacy levels did not differ while characteristics and facilitators differed in some aspects. The free program promoted CRC screening equity; however, multilevel facilitators must be concerned, prioritized and intervened to motivate participation.
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.