Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39118261›Full record

ArticleCancer medicine2024

Barriers and proposed solutions to at-home colorectal cancer screening tests in medically underserved health centers across three US regions to inform a randomized trial.

Suzanne Brodney, Roopa S Bhat, Jessica J Tuan, Gina Johnson, Folasade P May, Beth A Glenn, Kimberly Schoolcraft, Erica T Warner, Jennifer S Haas

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Cancer medicine, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

5 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

9 authors.

Suzanne BrodneyDivision of General Internal Medicine, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-4405-0726
Roopa S BhatDivision of General Internal Medicine, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts, USA.
Jessica J TuanUCLA Kaiser Permanent Center for Health Equity, UCLA Center for Cancer Prevention and Control Research, Jonsson Comprehensive Cancer Center, Los Angeles, California, USA.ORCID 0009-0008-5630-8203
Gina JohnsonCommunity Health Prevention Programs, Great Plains Tribal Leaders' Health Board, Rapid City, South Dakota, USA.ORCID 0009-0004-2287-4988
Folasade P MayUCLA Kaiser Permanent Center for Health Equity, UCLA Center for Cancer Prevention and Control Research, Jonsson Comprehensive Cancer Center, Los Angeles, California, USA.ORCID 0000-0001-6706-8171
Beth A GlennUCLA Kaiser Permanent Center for Health Equity, UCLA Center for Cancer Prevention and Control Research, Jonsson Comprehensive Cancer Center, Los Angeles, California, USA.
Kimberly SchoolcraftFight Colorectal Cancer, Springfield, Missouri, USA.
Erica T WarnerDivision of General Internal Medicine, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-2671-0313
Jennifer S HaasDivision of General Internal Medicine, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts, USA.ORCID 0000-0001-7227-851X

Funding

Stand Up To Cancer CRP-22-080-01-CTPS
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionAt-home colorectal cancer (CRC) screening is an effective way to reduce CRC mortality, but screening rates in medically underserved groups are low. To plan the implementation of a pragmatic randomized trial comparing two population-based outreach approaches, we conducted qualitative research on current processes and barriers to at-home CRC screening in 10 community health centers (CHCs) that serve medically underserved groups, four each in Massachusetts and California, and two tribal facilities in South Dakota.

methodsWe conducted 53 semi-structured interviews with clinical and administrative staff at the participating CHCs. Participants were asked about CRC screening processes, categorized into eight domains: patient identification, outreach, risk assessment, fecal immunochemical test (FIT) workflows, FIT-DNA (i.e., Cologuard) workflows, referral for a follow-up colonoscopy, patient navigation, and educational materials. Transcripts were analyzed using a Rapid Qualitative Analysis approach. A matrix was used to organize and summarize the data into four sub-themes: current process, barriers, facilitators, and solutions to adapt materials for the intervention.

resultsEach site's process for stool-based CRC screening varied slightly. Interviewees identified the importance of offering educational materials in English and Spanish, using text messages to remind patients to return kits, adapting materials to address health literacy needs so patients can access instructions in writing, pictures, or video, creating mailed workflows integrated with a tracking system, and offering patient navigation to colonoscopy for patients with an abnormal result.

conclusionProposed solutions across the three regions will inform a multilevel intervention in a pragmatic trial to increase CRC screening uptake in CHCs.

Indexed as

Colorectal NeoplasmsCommunity Health CentersEarly Detection of CancerMedically Underserved AreaAgedCaliforniaColonoscopyFemaleHumansMaleMassachusettsMass ScreeningMiddle AgedOccult BloodPatient NavigationQualitative Researchcolorectal cancer screeningcommunity health centersdisparitiesFITFIT‐DNAqualitativetribal health facility

Identifiers

PMID39118261
PMCPMC11310093

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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 Socratic graph.