ArticleCureus2024
Assessing the Relationship Between Self-Rated General Health and Colorectal Cancer Screening Uptake.
Article in Cureus, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Determinants of mammography screening uptake among women attending family health centers in Ankara, Türkiye: a cross-sectional study.BMC health services research · 2026Article
- Adherence to Breast, Cervical, and Colorectal Cancer Screening Among Women in Spain: Evidence from the 2023 Spanish Health Survey.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Article
- Cancer screening adherence among e-cigarette users in the United States.Tobacco prevention & cessation · 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundColorectal cancer screening has been shown to be effective in reducing the burden of colorectal cancer. However, the screening rate has been suboptimal, and mortality due to colorectal cancer remains high. With the presence of proactive prevention strategies, low screening rates could still be due to individual factors. Following the health-belief model, this study examined the relationship between self-rated general health perception and colorectal cancer screening.
methodsThe study utilized the 2022 Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System (BRFSS) Annual Survey dataset. The sample size was 177,889 and included individuals aged 45-75 years. The outcome variable was a categorical variable with binary responses of screened or not screened. The main predictor variable was an ordinal variable with five responses of poor, fair, good, very good, and excellent in the assessment of self-rated general health. Other covariates were age, sex, marital status, race, insurance status, level of education, annual income, and poor physical and mental health durations. The weighting variable of the dataset was used to adjust the sample to a weighted sample size. After obtaining descriptive statistics, simple and multivariate logistic regressions were fitted to analyze the relationship between the main predictor and the outcome variables. Statistical significance was set at a 95% confidence level.
resultThe weighted sample size was 83,303,438. Of these, 70.09% were screened and 29.91% were not screened for colorectal cancer. Excellent general health was reported by 14.80%, 34.32% very good, 32.1% good, 13.91% fair, and 4.87% had poor general health. Individuals with excellent general health perception were 25% less likely (adjusted odds ratio (AOR)=0.75; 95% CI=0.65, 0.88; p<0.0001) to be screened for colorectal cancer compared to those with poor general health perception.
conclusionThis study identifies the individual's excellent health perception as a possible contributing factor to the deficiency towards the realization of the goal in the rate of screening uptake and the need for revised and improved awareness programs.
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.