ArticleJournal of community health2026
Implementing a Cancer Screening Patient Registry in an Urban Student-Run Free Clinic: A Model for Preventive Care Tracking.
Article in Journal of community health, 2026. 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Despite national guidelines promoting early cancer detection, adherence to screening recommendations remains below the USPSTF Healthy People 2030 targets. Nationally, only 71.8% of eligible adults receive colorectal cancer (CRC) screenings and 75.9% receive breast cancer (BC) screenings. Rates are significantly lower in uninsured or low-income populations, with just 7.5% and 35% receiving CRC and BC screenings, respectively. To improve presentation care delivery, a patient registry was developed at an urban, student-run free clinic serving the uninsured to track CRC and BC eligibility and screening orders. Baseline screening rates were identified through a retrospective chart review of clinic patients seen from 2021 to 2023. Process mapping was used to identify failure points in the screening workflow. A patient registry was implemented over 15 months (January 2024-March 2025) to monitor eligibility and increase screening order rates. Data collection focused on the proportion of eligible patients with appropriate screening orders placed. Average screening rates for CRC and BC prior to intervention were 18.3% and 12.6%, respectively. Following the implementation of the patient registry, rates increased to 34.4% for CRC and 30.3% for BC. The improvement in CRC screening was statistically significant, while BC screening showed early signs of positive change. Targeted identification of screening-eligible patients, regardless of visit reason, improves screening order rates. This approach may promote earlier cancer detection and improved outcomes. It is cost-effective, replicable, and adaptable to other chronic condition monitoring in student-run free clinics.
Indexed as
Identifiers
41874896What 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.