Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39927130›Full record

ArticlePreventive medicine reports2025

Predictors of Colorectal Cancer Screening and Screening Modalities among Patients seen at Federally Qualified Health Centers Funded by the United States Health Resources and Services Administration.

Megan R M Aaronson, Nadereh Pourat, Connie Lu, Jayraan Badiee, Helen Yu-Lefler, Benjamin Picillo, Hank Hoang, Folasade P May

Abstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Preventive medicine reports, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing 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

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  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

8 authors.

Megan R M AaronsonFellow in Gastroenterology, UCLA Division of Digestive Diseases, UCLA, Los Angeles, CA, USA.
Nadereh PouratUCLA Center for Health Policy Research, Los Angeles, CA, USA.
Connie LuUCLA Center for Health Policy Research, Los Angeles, CA, USA.
Jayraan BadieeVatche and Tamar Manoukian Division of Digestive Diseases, Department of Medicine, David Geffen School of Medicine, UCLA, Los Angeles, CA, USA.
Helen Yu-LeflerBureau of Primary Health Care, Health Resources and Services Administration, US Department of Health and Human Services, Rockville, MD, USA.
Benjamin PicilloAt the time of writing, the author was employed at HHS, HRSA, BPHC; currently at CMS, Center for Medicare and Medicaid Innovation, USA.
Hank HoangBureau of Primary Health Care, Health Resources and Services Administration, US Department of Health and Human Services, Rockville, MD, USA.
Folasade P MayVatche and Tamar Manoukian Division of Digestive Diseases, Department of Medicine, David Geffen School of Medicine, UCLA, Los Angeles, CA, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Introduction: Federally qualified health centers provide primary care services to millions of low-income patients in the United States who face challenges accessing colorectal cancer (CRC) screening. We aimed to understand how patient-level factors influence CRC screening participation and screening modality choice in this setting. Methods: We examined data from the 2022 Health Center Patient Survey, 2021 Uniform Data System, and Area Health Resource File. We performed generalized multilevel logistic regression and multinomial regression to measure associations between our independent variables and receipt of any CRC screening and of screening modalities. Results: Among 1584 patients ages 50-75, most (56 %) reported having CRC screening, including 33 % with endoscopic screening only, 16 % with stool-based screening only, and 7 % with multiple modalities. Selected factors associated with any CRC screening included having five or more health center visits in the past year (aOR = 1.66, 95 %CI = 1.07-2.56), being insured (Medicaid aOR = 2.25, 95 %CI = 1.44-3.54; other insurance aOR = 2.69, 95 %CI = 1.51-4.82), living within 30  minutes of the health center (aOR = 1.93, 95 %CI = 1.15-3.25), having multiple comorbidities (aOR = 1.72, 95 %CI = 1.13-2.63), using telehealth (aOR = 1.52, 95 %CI = 1.02-2.27), and having a flu shot last year (aOR = 1.77, 95 %CI = 1.29-2.45). We observed that patients who are non-Hispanic Black (aOR = 3.52, 95 %CI = 1.28-9.68) and who do not speak English well or at all (aOR = 5.54, 95 %CI = 1.64-18.75) reported having multiple modalities. Conclusion: Federally qualified health center patients reported endoscopic CRC screening more commonly than stool-based screening, and barriers to access such as distance to the health center and English proficiency were impactful. Increasing CRC screening in low-income populations requires improving access and promoting opportunities for less invasive screening.

Indexed as

Access to healthcareColorectal cancer screeningHealth centersHealth disparitiesPatient surveys

Identifiers

PMID39927130
PMCPMC11803866

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.