Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39058902›Full record

ArticleCancer control : journal of the Moffitt Cancer Center

Examining the Sustainability of Core Capacity and Evidence-Based Interventions for FIT-Based CRC Screening: California Colorectal Cancer Control Program.

Ndukaku Omelu, Marilyn Kempster, LeeAnn Velasquez, Jessica Nunez de Ybarra, Renato Littaua, Shauntay Davis-Patterson, Marco Coelho, Brendan Darsie, June Hunter, Celena Donahue and 3 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Cancer control : journal of the Moffitt Cancer Center. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. The Co-Design of an Evidence-Based Health Education Strategy to Improve Bowel Cancer Awareness and Screening in a Remote Tasmanian Community: Lessons Learned.Health promotion journal of Australia : official journal of Australian Association of Health Promotion Professionals · 2025
    Article
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

13 authors.

Ndukaku OmeluCalifornia Department of Public Health, Sacramento, CA, USA.ORCID 0009-0007-8140-315X
Marilyn KempsterCalifornia Department of Public Health, Sacramento, CA, USA.
LeeAnn VelasquezCalifornia Department of Public Health, Sacramento, CA, USA.
Jessica Nunez de YbarraCalifornia Department of Public Health, Sacramento, CA, USA.
Renato LittauaCalifornia Department of Public Health, Sacramento, CA, USA.
Shauntay Davis-PattersonCalifornia Department of Public Health, Sacramento, CA, USA.
Marco CoelhoCalifornia Department of Public Health, Sacramento, CA, USA.
Brendan DarsieCalifornia Department of Public Health, Sacramento, CA, USA.
June HunterAmerican Cancer Society, Sacramento, CA, USA.
Celena DonahueAmerican Cancer Society, Sacramento, CA, USA.
Socorro CarrilloAmerican Cancer Society, Sacramento, CA, USA.
Raquel AriasAmerican Cancer Society, Sacramento, CA, USA.
Sonia PinalAmerican Cancer Society, Sacramento, CA, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesWe examined the extent to which funded satellite clinics could sustain the California Colon Cancer Control Program (C4P) strategies implemented in health systems to increase uptake of the fecal immunochemical test (FIT) or immunochemical fecal occult blood test (iFOBT) for colorectal cancer (CRC) screening in the absence of future C4P funds.

introductionSeven health systems consisting of 38 satellite clinics participated in C4P to examine the sustainability of the program in the absence future Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) funding.

methodsQuantitative and qualitative methods with a close and open-ended survey approach, and a prospective cohort design were used to examine the sustainability of the C4P in health systems.

resultsA total of 61% of satellite clinics could not sustain funding stability. Only 26% could sustain funding stability. About, 71%, 26%, and 21% of the satellite clinics could sustain the small media platform, patient navigation services, and community health workers (CHWs), respectively. All the satellite clinics sustained the provider reminder system and professional development. Roughly, 71% and 42% of funded satellite clinics could not sustain the patient navigators and CHWs, respectively. The satellite clinics that could sustain funding stability, sustained patient navigation services and CHWs. Health systems that could not sustain funding stability, could not sustain patient navigation services and CHWs. Qualitatively, the need to support uninsured priority populations, health educators, patient navigators, care coordination activities, outreach services, and provision of enhanced services emerged. The need to support enhanced quality measures, expansion of funding, Medi-Cal Public Hospital Redesign and Incentive coverage, health plan, community linkages, resource sharing, and best practices specifically on CRC screening emerged. Themes such as automated reminder, limited personalized care delivery and capacity, transportation barriers, staff salary, expansion of care through patient navigation, and culturally appropriate media campaign also emerged.

conclusionOverall, to address sustainability barriers, funding stability should be maintained in the health systems.

Indexed as

Colorectal NeoplasmsEarly Detection of CancerOccult BloodCaliforniaFemaleHumansMass ScreeningProspective StudiesCaliforniacancer screeningcapacity evaluationcolorectal cancercore capacityevidence-based interventionsfecal immunochemical testfederally qualified health centerssupporting activitiessustaianability

Identifiers

PMID39058902
PMCPMC11282556

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.