ArticleWomen's health reports (New Rochelle, N.Y.)2024
Comparing Cancer Primary and Secondary Prevention Documentation Between Different Digital Health Approaches in the Emergency Department.
Article in Women's health reports (New Rochelle, N.Y.), 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Decreasing primary care access and increasing emergency department (ED) usage is a potential contributor to declining cancer screening prevalences in those facing barriers to health care access. The ED is a non-traditional yet potentially high-yield setting for implementation of interventions to monitor and increase cancer screening. Methods: An ED-administered survey in July 2022 gathered data on breast, cervical, and colorectal cancer screening, as well as human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccination status of females presenting to the ED for care. This was compared with electronic health record (EHR) data extraction of all ED patients during the same timeframe. Primary outcome was proportion of cancer screening and HPV vaccination not up to date in each group. Results: ED survey was administered to 101 individuals; EHR data was extracted on 2934 patients. Survey versus EHR, respectively, found cervical cancer screening was not up to date in 6.2% vs. 77.6%, breast cancer screening in 14.3% vs. 73.4%, colorectal cancer screening in 22.9% vs. 56.5%, and HPV vaccination in 33.3% vs. 57.8%. Discussion: Our data indicate significant discrepancies between self-reported screening history and EHR data. ED survey results were more in line with the observed screening rates in various surveillance systems and published in the literature. This suggests that point-of-care ED survey administration may be more effective in identifying those needing preventative cancer screening, especially in individuals with less access to routine health care.
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.