ArticleAdvances in health information science and practice2025
Using REDCap to Address Gaps in Electronic Health Record Data for Strengthening Colorectal Cancer Screening and Navigation.
Article in Advances in health information science and practice, 2025. 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
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Despite widespread adoption of electronic health records (EHRs), colorectal cancer (CRC) screening rates remain suboptimal, particularly in underserved regions. This study aimed to evaluate the impact of a secure, HIPAA-compliant REDCap system on patient navigation and CRC screening outcomes within the West Virginia Program to Increase Colorectal Cancer Screening (WVPICCS) initiative. Methods: A REDCap database was developed to complement existing EHRs, capturing patient demographics, CRC screening history, and navigation activities. Structured forms documented referrals, results, and follow-up actions for various screening modalities. Custom EHR reports and Microsoft Access queries combined REDCap and EHR data, enabling teams to identify at-risk patients, address barriers (eg, insurance, transportation), and prioritize care. Descriptive statistics and contingency analyses were performed to assess screening completion rates and the association of navigation with screening uptake. Results: Among 4,654 identified patients, 2,222 (47.7%) were screened for colorectal cancer. A subset of 893 patients was tracked for navigation outcomes; 109 (12.2%) received navigation. Navigation uptake varied by site, ranging from 9.2% to 17.7%. Patients receiving navigation were more likely to complete CRC screening (39.5% vs. 31.0%), although this difference did not meet conventional significance in two-tailed tests (p > 0.05). Subgroup analyses indicated that even among patients with documented barriers (n = 42), navigated individuals achieved higher screening rates (38.1%) than those without navigation (31.0%), suggesting potential clinical benefit. Conclusions: Implementing a REDCap-based patient navigation system helped identify, track, and support at-risk patients, contributing to modest yet meaningful improvements in CRC screening rates. Refining and expanding these data systems is important in overcoming persistent challenges in CRC early detection, supporting better health outcomes and reduced CRC burden.
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.