ArticleBMC public health2026
Knowledge, attitudes, and behaviors regarding cancer screening among adults in primary care.
Article in BMC public 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo assess adults' knowledge, attitudes, and behaviors about cancer screening in primary care, and to evaluate short-term changes in attitudes after brief written information.
methodsThis cross-sectional study was conducted from March to June 2019 in a family medicine outpatient clinic. Adults aged 20-70 years who agreed to participate were consecutively enrolled. Data were collected using a structured face-to-face questionnaire assessing sociodemographic characteristics, cancer screening awareness, prior screening behavior, barriers, and post-brochure attitudes. Because study participation age did not necessarily correspond to screening eligibility, a post hoc binary screening-eligibility variable was created according to the study-period age/sex framework reflected in the questionnaire and source dataset. Categorical variables were analysed using Pearson's chi-square test or Fisher's exact test, as appropriate, and paired pre/post willingness responses were analysed using McNemar's exact test. Exploratory multiple binary logistic regression was performed for prior screening uptake.
resultsA total of 247 participants were included (mean age 43.4 ± 12.7 years; 68.4% female). Overall, 40.5% were aware of cancer screening tests and 37.0% reported having previously undergone at least one screening test. However, uptake differed markedly by screening eligibility: 89/169 (52.7%) eligible participants versus 2/77 (2.6%) non-eligible participants had ever been screened. Awareness distribution differed significantly between healthcare workers and non-healthcare participants, whereas crude prior screening uptake did not differ significantly by occupation. Willingness to undergo screening increased after the brochure, indicating a short-term positive change in intention.
conclusionsAwareness of cancer screening did not consistently translate into screening participation. Crude non-screening rates should not be interpreted without considering screening eligibility structure and sample composition. Brief written information may improve short-term willingness, but these findings should be interpreted as intention rather than confirmed behavioral change.
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.