ArticleCureus2026
Evaluating the Effectiveness of a Proposed 11-Step Community-Based Interventional Program That Educates, Assesses Risk, and Overcomes Barriers to Complete Screening Colonoscopy Among African Americans.
Article in Cureus, 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective This study evaluated an 11-step Community-Based Interventional Program (CBIP) designed to improve colorectal cancer (CRC) knowledge, assess perceived CRC risk, and identify barriers to CRC screening among African Americans. Methods CBIPs were conducted at multiple community locations and included a 30-minute educational presentation on CRC screening. Participants completed pre- and post-education surveys assessing CRC knowledge, demographics, CRC risk, and barriers to screening. Program effectiveness was evaluated using participant satisfaction ratings. Results A total of 166 participants attended sessions of 10-20 individuals. Median correct responses increased from eight (pre-test) to nine (post-test) (p = 0.52). CRC risk was average in 40.4% of participants and above average in 59.6%. Common barriers included the need for appointment reminder calls (14.3%), transportation (13.5%), and an accompanying adult (12.1%). Seventy percent preferred receiving education before screening, and 84.3% reported satisfaction with the program. Conclusion This CBIP was well-received and identified key barriers to CRC screening. Although limitations exist, this feasibility study can serve as a guide for further research into community-based interventions.
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.