SynthesisPloS one2024
Are behavioral economics interventions effective in increasing colorectal cancer screening uptake: A systematic review of evidence and meta-analysis?
Synthesis in PloS one, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Improving Breast Cancer Outcomes by Enhanced Activities in Early Detection and Diagnosis: An Umbrella Review and Meta-Analyses of Randomised Controlled Trials in High-Income Contexts With Universal Healthcare Coverage.Cancer control : journal of the Moffitt Cancer CenterPooled it
- The effect of promotional health message framing on the perceived benefit of mammography: evidence from estimation of willingness to pay.Journal of health, population, and nutrition · 2025Trial
- Leveraging principles of behavioural economics to encourage patient engagement with population health screening programmes.BMJ open quality · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Various interventions have been investigated to improve the uptake of colorectal cancer screening. In this paper, the authors have attempted to provide a pooled estimate of the effect size of the BE interventions running a systematic review based meta-analysis. In this study, all the published literatures between 2000 and 2022 have been reviewed. Searches were performed in PubMed, Scopus and Cochrane databases. The main outcome was the demanding the one of the colorectal cancer screening tests. The quality assessment was done by two people so that each person evaluated the studies separately and independently based on the individual participant data the modified Jadad scale. Pooled effect size (odds ratio) was estimated using random effects model at 95% confidence interval. Galbraith, Forrest and Funnel plots were used in data analysis. Publication bias was also investigated through Egger's test. All the analysis was done in STATA 15. From the initial 1966 records, 38 were included in the final analysis in which 72612 cases and 71493 controls have been studied. About 72% have been conducted in the USA. The heterogeneity of the studies was high based on the variation in OR (I2 = 94.6%, heterogeneity X2 = 670.01 (d.f. = 36), p < 0.01). The random effect pooled odds ratio (POR) of behavioral economics (BE) interventions was calculated as 1.26 (95% CI: 1.26 to 1.43). The bias coefficient is noteworthy (3.15) and statistically significant (p< 0.01). According to the results of this meta-analysis, health policy and decision makers can improve the efficiency and cost effectiveness of policies to control this type of cancer by using various behavioral economics interventions. It's noteworthy that due to the impossibility of categorizing behavioral economics interventions; we could not perform by group analysis.
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.