ArticleInternational journal of behavioral medicine2025
Cancer Screening in Appalachia: A Common-Sense Approach.
Article in International journal of behavioral medicine, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. 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
- Erratum issued
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundThe Appalachian region in the USA has some of the highest rates of cancer and cancer mortality in the country, due in part to suboptimal screening. Routine screening for cervical and colorectal cancer can decrease cancer morbidity and mortality. The current study sought to assess the feasibility and preliminary impact of an intervention guided by the Common-sense Model of Self-regulation to improve cervical and colorectal cancer attitudes and screening intentions.
methodParticipants were approached in safety net clinics in Appalachian communities. Individuals completed surveys before and after an intervention that was designed to address lay understandings about the risks and causes of cervical and colorectal cancer and screening. Interventions were conducted with up to three family members, but at least one person in the family was not within screening guidelines. Paired t-tests assessed the impact of the intervention.
resultsParticipants (n = 121) were predominantly women (76.0%) and White (69.4%) and had incomes of $20,000 or less (69.4%). Overall, screening barriers were moderate and did not change after the intervention. In response to the intervention, perceived risk and cervical cancer causes (risk factors) became more accurate, individuals increased in knowledge of colorectal cancer screening, the perceived deadliness of cervical and colorectal cancers decreased, intentions to screen increased, and the appraisal of the effectiveness of screening increased (all p's < 0.05, Holm adjusted).
conclusionThe intervention had a positive impact on lay understanding of cervical and colorectal cancer and increased intentions to have cancer screening. A larger, randomized control trial is merited to investigate the impact of the intervention on screening rates.
Indexed as
Identifiers
41339610What 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.