ArticlePLOS digital health2025
Digital health interventions for colorectal cancer screening uptake: A scoping review.
Article in PLOS digital health, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Colorectal Cancer: Epidemiology, Risk Factors, Signaling Pathways, Clinical Features, Screening, Diagnosis, and Management.MedComm · 2026Review
- A global scoping review of interventions to increase participation in screening programmes for breast, cervical and colorectal cancer between 2016 and 2025.BMC public health · 2026Article
- Scan, Screen, Support-A Digital Pathway for Assessing Supportive Care Needs in Oncology: Implementation Study.JMIR cancer · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Digital health interventions (DHIs) are increasingly employed to improve colorectal cancer (CRC) screening uptake, yet comprehensive syntheses of their effectiveness across diverse contexts remain scarce. This scoping review examines how individual, contextual, technological, and timing-related factors shape CRC screening outcomes in DHI-based trials. Following PRISMA-ScR guidelines, we conducted a systematic search of PubMed, Google Scholar, and ClinicalTrials.gov from March 1 to April 20, 2024, identifying 4,523 records through databases and an additional 2,039 through backward citation tracking. After deduplication and screening, 51 studies were included and charted using the PICOT (Population, Intervention, Comparison, Outcome, and Timing) framework. Included studies spanned urban health systems, rural community clinics, and Federally Qualified Health Centers in the United States, Europe, Asia, and Australia, with intervention durations ranging from six weeks to ten years. Keyword co-occurrence mapping revealed four thematic domains: (1) patient-centered technology and adherence, (2) behavioral design and personalization, (3) clinical workflow and provider interaction, and (4) equity, disparities, and community engagement. Findings showed that tailored telephone outreach, mailed fecal immunochemical testing combined with navigation support, EMR-based automated reminders, and mobile applications delivering personalized education increased screening rates by 20.9% to 37.7% compared with conventional approaches. Hybrid models combining digital tools with human facilitation were particularly effective for underserved populations, including racial and ethnic minorities, rural communities, and individuals with limited health literacy. However, research gaps persist for younger adults at risk for early-onset CRC and for understanding the long-term sustainability and cost-effectiveness of digital interventions. Temporal aspects such as intervention timing, frequency, and duration were identified as important factors but were inconsistently reported. Future research should address digital health literacy, implementation barriers, and long-term follow-up to support sustained CRC screening adherence through user-centered, scalable, and culturally responsive digital solutions.
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.