The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Adherence to Colorectal Cancer Screening: A Randomized Clinical Trial of Competing Strategies
Open accessAbstract
BACKGROUND: Despite evidence that several colorectal cancer (CRC) screening strategies can reduce CRC mortality, screening rates remain low. This study aimed to determine whether the approach by which screening is recommended influences adherence. METHODS: We used a cluster randomization design with clinic time block as the unit of randomization. Persons at average risk for development of CRC in a racially/ethnically diverse urban setting were randomized to receive recommendation for screening by fecal occult blood testing (FOBT), colonoscopy, or their choice of FOBT or colonoscopy. The primary outcome was completion of CRC screening within 12 months after enrollment, defined as performance of colonoscopy, or 3 FOBT cards plus colonoscopy for any positive FOBT result. Secondary analyses evaluated sociodemographic factors associated with completion of screening. RESULTS: A total of 997 participants were enrolled; 58% completed the CRC screening strategy they were assigned or chose. However, participants who were recommended colonoscopy completed screening at a significantly lower rate (38%) than participants who were recommended FOBT (67%) (P < .001) or given a choice between FOBT or colonoscopy (69%) (P < .001). Latinos and Asians (primarily Chinese) completed screening more often than African Americans. Moreover, nonwhite participants adhered more often to FOBT, while white participants adhered more often to colonoscopy. CONCLUSIONS: The common practice of universally recommending colonoscopy may reduce adherence to CRC screening, especially among racial/ethnic minorities. Significant variation in overall and strategy-specific adherence exists between racial/ethnic groups; however, this may be a proxy for health beliefs and/or language. These results suggest that patient preferences should be considered when making CRC screening recommendations. Trial Registration clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT00705731.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cited by
Screening for Colorectal Cancer: US Preventive Services Task Force Recommendation Statement
US Preventive Services Task Force, Bibbins-Domingo, K., Grossman, D. C., Curry, S. J., Davidson, K. W., Epling, J. W., García, F. A. R., Gillman, M. W., Harper, D. M., Kemper, A. R., et al. (2016) · JAMA · doi:10.1001/jama.2016.5989 · Cited by 2,509
Wolf, A. M. D., Fontham, E. T. H., Church, T. R., Flowers, C. R., Guerra, C. E., LaMonte, S. J., Etzioni, R., McKenna, M. T., Oeffinger, K. C., Shih, Y. T., et al. (2018) · CA: A Cancer Journal for Clinicians · doi:10.3322/caac.21457 · Cited by 1,944
Multitarget Stool DNA Testing for Colorectal-Cancer Screening
Imperiale, T. F., Ransohoff, D. F., Itzkowitz, S. H., Levin, T. R., Lavin, P., Lidgard, G. P., Ahlquist, D. A., & Berger, B. M. (2014) · New England Journal of Medicine · doi:10.1056/nejmoa1311194 · Cited by 1,900
Current and future colorectal cancer screening strategies
Shaukat, A., & Levin, T. R. (2022) · Nature Reviews Gastroenterology & Hepatology · doi:10.1038/s41575-022-00612-y · Cited by 516
Dougherty, M. K., Brenner, A. T., Crockett, S. D., Gupta, S., Wheeler, S. B., Coker-Schwimmer, M., Cubillos, L., Malo, T., & Reuland, D. S. (2018) · JAMA Internal Medicine · doi:10.1001/jamainternmed.2018.4637 · Cited by 362
Metadata
- Authors
- Vijan, S.
- Venue
- Archives of Internal Medicine
- Publisher
- American Medical Association (AMA)
- Published
- 2012-04-09
- Volume
- 172
- Issue
- 7
- Pages
- 575
- ISSN
- 0003-9926 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2159078264
- Cited by
- 552
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 17.19
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Adherence to Colorectal Cancer Screening: A Randomized Clinical Trial of Competing Strategies. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1001/archinternmed.2012.332
- The paper
- Vijan, S. (2012). Adherence to Colorectal Cancer Screening: A Randomized Clinical Trial of Competing Strategies. Archives of Internal Medicine. https://doi.org/10.1001/archinternmed.2012.332
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.