ArticleCancer medicine2026
Strategies to Address Colorectal Cancer Screening Disparities Developed Through Community Based Participatory Design: A Mixed Methods Study.
Article in Cancer medicine, 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
9 authors.
Funding
Abstract
introductionColorectal cancer (CRC) screening rates remain below recommended clinical guidelines, especially among people of color. This study aimed to assess CRC screening rates, identify barriers, and develop improvement strategies in racially diverse communities using community-based participatory design, engaging Community Health Action Teams (CHATs).
methodsThis mixed-methods study employed surveys and focus groups, with data collection instruments co-designed with community members to ensure relevance and accuracy. A random sample of households with screen-eligible residents received a survey, focusing on assessing screening rates and identifying facilitators and barriers to CRC screening. Focus groups used snowball sampling in the same communities to deepen understanding through qualitative insights.
resultsOf 1,798 survey respondents, 81% reported participating in CRC screening, with 69% being up to date. Awareness of CRC's preventable and treatable nature, when detected early, (b = 0.647, p < 0.001, OR = 1.91); understanding its asymptomatic potential (b = 0.345, p < 0.001, OR = 1.42); and recognition of its ranking as the second most deadly cancer (b = 0.354, p = 0.007, OR = 1.42) were significant predictors of screening adherence. Knowledge of at-home tests increased compliance with screening (b = 0.752, p < 0.001, OR = 2.12). Barriers reported by unscreened respondents included a lack of symptoms (19%), absence of motivation (19%), being asymptomatic (20%), and for insured individuals, a lack of physician orders for screening (19%). Insights from focus groups, including 65 participants, revealed multi-level barriers, echoing survey findings where relationships with medical providers emerged as the strongest predictor of screening participation.
conclusionsThe study informed the creation of six key outreach messages and two strategies co-led by CHATs, emphasizing CRC screening importance, test options, and cost considerations. Suggested strategies include organizing community events to raise awareness and enhancing direct provider-to-patient communication to encourage screening uptake.
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.