ArticleEuropean journal of public health2024
Differences in colorectal cancer awareness between screening eligible vs. ineligible Palestinians: a national cross-sectional study.
Article in European journal of public health, 2024. 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.
- Colorectal cancer screening awareness among rural populations in Northern China.BMC public health · 2026Observational
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
32 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThis study aimed to compare colorectal cancer (CRC) awareness between screening-eligible and ineligible individuals in Palestine.
methodsConvenience sampling was utilized to recruit Palestinian adults from diverse settings, including hospitals, primary healthcare centers and public spaces across 11 governorates. The evaluation of CRC awareness in terms of signs/symptoms, risk factors and causation myths was conducted using Arabic-translated, modified versions of the validated instruments, the Bowel Cancer Awareness Measure and the Cancer Awareness Measure-Mythical Causes Scale.
resultsThe final analysis included 2698 participants, with 2158 (80.9%) eligible for CRC screening and 540 (19.1%) ineligible for it. The most recognized CRC sign/symptom was 'lump in the abdomen' in both screening-eligible (n = 386, 71.5%) and ineligible (n = 1582, 73.3%) groups. 'Lack of physical activity' was the most recognized risk factor in both groups (eligible: n = 451, 83.5%; ineligible: n = 1766, 81.8%). The most reported causation myth in both groups was 'having a physical trauma' (eligible: n = 340, 63.0%; ineligible: n = 1353, 62.7%). In the screening-eligible group, only 210 participants (38.9%) demonstrated high awareness of CRC signs/symptoms, 213 participants (39.4%) showed high awareness of CRC risk factors and only 46 participants (8.5%) displayed high awareness of CRC causation myths. There were no significant associations between being eligible for screening colonoscopy and the awareness levels of CRC signs/symptoms, risk factors and causation myths.
conclusionOverall, awareness levels of CRC signs/symptoms, risk factors and causation myths were notably low among screening-eligible participants. There were no differences in awareness levels between individuals eligible for colonoscopy and those who were not.
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.