Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39424768›Full record

Trial reportJournal of general internal medicine2025

Patient Perceptions on the Follow-Up of Abnormal Cancer Screening Test Results.

Steven J Atlas, Katherine L Gallagher, Sydney E McGovern, Amy J Wint, Rebecca E Smith, David G Aman, Wenyan Zhao, Timothy E Burdick, E John Orav, Li Zhou and 3 more

Registry-linked trialAbstract readRandomized Controlled TrialMulticenter Study
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Trial report in Journal of general internal medicine, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT03979495 (mFOCUS), which is not on this map. Cited by 3 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–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.

NCT03979495 nacompletednot on this map

mFOCUS (Multilevel FOllow-up of Cancer Screening)

TypeinterventionalSponsorMassachusetts General HospitalRan2020 to 2022Enrolled11,980ConditionsCancerArmsmFOCUS
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

3 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. 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.

Steven J AtlasDivision of General Internal Medicine, Massachusetts General Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, USA. satlas@mgh.harvard.edu.ORCID 0000-0002-2297-9614
Katherine L GallagherDivision of General Internal Medicine, Massachusetts General Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, USA.
Sydney E McGovernDivision of General Internal Medicine, Massachusetts General Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, USA.
Amy J WintDivision of General Internal Medicine, Massachusetts General Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, USA.
Rebecca E SmithThe Dartmouth Institute for Health Policy and Clinical Practice, Geisel School of Medicine, Hanover, NH, USA.
David G AmanResearch Computing, Dartmouth College, Lebanon, NH, USA.
Wenyan ZhaoThe Dartmouth Institute for Health Policy and Clinical Practice, Geisel School of Medicine, Hanover, NH, USA.
Timothy E BurdickThe Dartmouth Institute for Health Policy and Clinical Practice, Geisel School of Medicine, Hanover, NH, USA.
E John OravDivision of General Internal Medicine and Primary Care, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Boston, MA, USA.
Li ZhouDivision of General Internal Medicine and Primary Care, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Boston, MA, USA.
Adam WrightDepartment of Biomedical Informatics, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, TN, USA.
Anna N A TostesonThe Dartmouth Institute for Health Policy and Clinical Practice, Geisel School of Medicine, Hanover, NH, USA.
Jennifer S HaasDivision of General Internal Medicine, Massachusetts General Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, USA.

Funding

Translational Engineering in Cancer (TEC)P30CA023108 · NCI · DARTMOUTH COLLEGE · PI Fred W Kolling IV · 1985 to 2026
$91.3M
Promoting follow-up of abnormal cancer screening tests using population-basedsystems to support stepped care multilevel interventionU01CA225451 · NCI · MASSACHUSETTS GENERAL HOSPITAL · PI ATLAS, STEVEN J, HAAS, JENNIFER S · 2018 to 2022
$4.2M
NCI NIH HHS P30 CA023108NCI NIH HHS U01 CA225451NCI NIH HHS U01CA225451
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundTimely follow-up after an abnormal cancer screening test result is needed to maximize the benefits of screening, but is frequently not achieved. Little is known about patient experiences with the process of following up abnormal screening results.

objectiveAssess patient experiences and perceptions regarding the process of a diagnostic workup following abnormal breast, cervical, or colorectal cancer screening results.

designSurvey of participating patients between April 2021 and June 2022 after reaching the primary outcome time point in a randomized controlled trial to improve follow-up of overdue abnormal screening results.

participantsPatients from 44 participating practices in three primary care practice networks. MAIN MEASURES: Self-reported ease of scheduling follow-up, perceived barriers or concerns, provider trust, and satisfaction with communication and care received for the follow-up of abnormal screening results.

resultsOverall, 241 (25.0%) patients completed the survey including 66 (32.8%) with breast, 79 (25.3%) with cervical, and 96 (21.3%) with colorectal screening test; median age 55 years, 79.7% women, 80.5% non-Hispanic white, and 51.0% did not complete recommended follow-up. Most patients were worried that the test would find cancer (63.1%), but fewer worried about discomfort or side effects (34.4%), and neither were associated with completing follow-up. However, 17% of patients did not think they needed follow-up tests or appointments and were less likely to complete follow-up (10.5% vs. 24.0%, respectively, p-value 0.009). Most patients were very satisfied with their overall care (71.0%), but only 50.2% strongly agreed that they trusted their provider to put their medical needs above all else when making recommendations.

conclusionsPatients with overdue abnormal breast, cervical, and colorectal cancer screening test results reported important deficiencies in the management of recommended follow-up. Addressing patient concerns about fear of cancer and effectively communicating the need for follow-up procedures may improve timely follow-up after an abnormal cancer screening result.

trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov NCT03979495.

Indexed as

Early Detection of CancerPatient SatisfactionAdultAgedBreast NeoplasmsColorectal NeoplasmsFemaleFollow-Up StudiesHumansMaleMiddle AgedPerceptionSurveys and QuestionnairesUterine Cervical Neoplasmsabnormal resultscancer preventioncancer screeningpatient surveyprimary care

Identifiers

PMID39424768
PMCPMC12045921

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

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.