Observational studyDeutsches Arzteblatt international2024
Intended and Actual Participation in the Colorectal Cancer Screening Program.
Observational study in Deutsches Arzteblatt international, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Willingness to Participate in a Program for the Early Detection of Lung Cancer With Low-Dose Computed Tomography: Data From a Representative Survey (DEBRA).Deutsches Arzteblatt international · 2025Article
- Clinical Features in Patients With Early-Onset Colorectal Cancer: An Evaluation of Data From the StuDoQ Database.Deutsches Arzteblatt international · 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe public generally has a positive view of colorectal cancer screening, but there is still room for improvement in participation rates. The aim of this study was to identify factors that are associated with intended and actual participation.
methodsWe conducted a prospective cohort study of a random sample of insurees of the AOK (a statutory health insurance carrier) in the German federal state of Lower Saxony. 50-year-old men and 55-year-old women who were eligible for their first screening colonoscopy received a written questionnaire in June 2020, three weeks after being invited to undergo colorectal cancer screening. For those who intended to do so, we used multivariable logistic regression analysis to determine any statistical associations between sociodemographic and medical characteristics and participation rates within 30 months.
results82.7% of the respondents (239/298) intended to participate, and 43.3% (129/298) actually did so within 30 months. The participation rates among persons who had already decided to have a stool test or a colonoscopy were 50.7% (36/71) and 55.2% (58/105), respectively; the participation rate among undecided persons was 33.3% (19/57). The strongest association in the regression model was with an already made appointment (OR = 11.1, 95% confidence interval: [3.9; 31.8]). After exclusion of the existingappointment variable from the regression model, living in a smaller town (OR = 2.41 [1.08; 5.35]) and a stated preference for colonoscopy (OR = 2.52; [1.20; 5.27]) were positively associated with participation. Insurees with a parent affected by colorectal cancer participated less frequently, even after adjustment for prior colonoscopies (OR = 0.31 [0.12; 0.80]).
conclusionThe wide gap between intended and actual participation implies that there is potential for improvement in the prevention of colorectal cancer, and that certain groups of people could benefit from targeted support in making their intention to undergo screening a reality. Because of the methodological limitations of this initial investigation, its findings need to be confirmed by further studies.
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.