ArticleCureus2024
Assessment of Knowledge, Attitude, and Practice Regarding Colorectal Carcinoma Screening Among Healthcare Personnel.
Article in Cureus, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
backgroundColorectal carcinoma (CRC) is a rising issue worldwide, with high morbidity and mortality rates. It is the third most common cause of death globally. Early diagnosis can lead to prevention and treatment, making it crucial for healthcare professionals to have proper knowledge about CRC screening. AIMS AND
objectivesThis study aimed to assess the level of awareness, identify knowledge gaps, and update the knowledge of healthcare workers.
methodsThis descriptive cross-sectional study was conducted from May to October 2023, in multiple tertiary care hospitals of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, Pakistan. Responses were collected manually through a designed proforma of questionnaires.
resultsA total of 164 participants (137 male and 27 female) took part in our study. Among the participants, 92.1% (n = 151) were aware that colonoscopy is used for CRC screening. Other screening methods known to them included a fecal occult blood test (FOBT) (65.9%, n = 108), flexible sigmoidoscopy (48.2%, n = 79), stool DNA test (31.1%, n = 51), and virtual colonoscopy (34.1%, n = 56). Only 6.1% (n = 10) routinely recommended CRC screening for all patients, 22.6% (n = 37) recommended it occasionally, and 71.3% (n = 117) rarely or never recommended it. Regarding factors influencing the recommendation of CRC screening, 83.5% (n = 137) cited family history of CRC as the major factor, followed by patient age (68.3%, n = 112), availability of screening facilities (46.3%, n = 76), patient's overall health status (37.2%, n = 61), and patient's preference (20.7%, n = 34).
conclusionThis study concluded that only a small proportion of healthcare personnel regularly recommend CRC screening. In addition, a small proportion are familiar with CRC screening guidelines, although most are well-informed about the various investigations used for screening.
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.