CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 58Colorectal Cancer Screening and DetectionGlobal Cancer Incidence and ScreeningHealth Promotion and Cardiovascular Prevention

Interventions to promote colorectal cancer screening: An integrative review

Open access
Rawl, Susan M., Menon, Usha, Burness, Allison, Breslau, Erica S.·2012·Nursing Outlook
DOI 10.1016/j.outlook.2011.11.003PMC PMC3366042
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Behavior change interventions to promote colorectal cancer (CRC) screening have targeted people in community and primary care settings, health care providers, and health systems. Randomized controlled trials provide the strongest evidence of intervention efficacy. The purpose of this integrative review was to evaluate trials of CRC screening interventions published between 1997 and 2007 and to identify knowledge gaps and future directions for research. Thirty-three randomized trials that met inclusion criteria were evaluated using a modified version of the TREND criteria. Significant intervention effects were reported in 6 of 10 trials focused on increasing fecal occult blood testing, 4 of 7 trials focused on sigmoidoscopy or colonoscopy completion, and 9 of 16 trials focused on completion of any screening test. Several effective interventions to promote CRC screening were identified. Future trials need to use theory to guide interventions, examine moderators and mediators, consistently report results, and use comparable outcome measures.

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.outlook.2011.11.003

Cites

1 of 1 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • An integrative review of interventions to promote CRC screening found six trials that combined different types of intervention features (published between 1997 and 2007) with positive effects on uptake.

    “An integrative review of interventions to promote CRC screening found six trials that combined different types of intervention features (published between 1997 and 2007) with positive effects on uptake [63].”

    From Improving cancer screening uptake: A behavioural and cultural insights perspective and rapid review (2026) · cites this paper as [63]

    Split into 2 atoms — 1 confirmed, 1 partially supported, 0 disputed, 0 misattributed, 0 unverifiable. Expand the claim to see per-atom verdicts.

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • An integrative review of interventions for colorectal cancer screening promotion found six studies combining different types of interventions (published between 1997 and 2007) with positive effects on participation.

    “Интегративни преглед интервенција за промоцију скрининга на РДЦ је пронашао шест студија које су комбиновале различите врсте интервенција (објављених између 1997.и 2007.године) са позитивним ефектима на учешће [63].”

    From Improving cancer screening uptake: A behavioural and cultural insights perspective and rapid review (2026) · cites this paper as [63]

    Split into 2 atoms — 0 confirmed, 2 partially supported, 0 disputed, 0 misattributed, 0 unverifiable. Expand the claim to see per-atom verdicts.

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 49

  1. [2]National Cancer Institute Conquering colorectal cancer: A blueprint for the future Colorectal Cancer Progress Review Group 2000
  2. [4]Berger AM Cochrane B Mitchell SA The 2009–2013 research agenda for oncology nursing Oncol Nurs Forum 2009 36 E274 E282 19726387 PMC2844780
  3. [5]Meissner HI Breen N Klabunde CN Vernon SW Patterns of colorectal cancer screening uptake among men and women in the United States Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 2006 15 389 394 16492934
  4. [7]Levin B Lieberman DA McFarland B Screening and surveillance for the early detection of colorectal cancer and adenomatous polyps, 2008: a joint guideline from the American Cancer Society, the US Multi-Society Task Force on Colorectal Cancer, and the American College of Radiology CA Cancer J Clin 2008 58 130 160 18322143
  5. [8]Vernon SW Participation in colorectal cancer screening: a review J Natl Cancer Inst 1997 89 1406 1422 9326910
  6. [9]Holden DJ Jonas DE Porterfield DS Reuland D Harris R Systematic review: enhancing the use and quality of colorectal cancer screening Ann Intern Med 152 668 676 20388703
  7. [10]Klabunde CN Ambs A Keating NL The role of primary care physicians in cancer care J Gen Intern Med 2009 24 1029 1036 19597893 PMC2726889
  8. [12]Lipkus IM Skinner CS Dement J Increasing colorectal cancer screening among individuals in the carpentry trade: test of risk communication interventions Prev Med 2005 40 489 501 15749130
  9. [13]Goldberg D Schiff G McNutt R Furumoto-Dawson A Hammerman M Hoffman A Abcarian H Mailings timed to patients' appointments. A controlled trial of fecal occult blood test cards Am J Prev Med 2004 26 431 435 15165660
  10. [14]Friedman LC Everett TE Peterson L Ogbonnaya KI Mendizabal V Compliance with fecal occult blood test screening among low-income medical outpatients: a randomized controlled trial using a videotaped intervention J Cancer Educ 2001 16 85 88 11440068
  11. [15]Miller DP Jr Kimberly JR Jr Case LD Wofford JL Using a computer to teach patients about fecal occult blood screening. A randomized trial.[see comment] Journal of General Internal Medicine 2005 20 984 988 16307621 PMC1490260
  12. [16]Powe BD Ntekop E Barron M An intervention study to increase colorectal cancer knowledge and screening among community elders Public Health Nursing 2004 21 435 442 15363024
  13. [17]Braun KL Fong M Kaanoi ME Kamaka ML Gotay CC Testing a culturally appropriate, theory-based intervention to improve colorectal cancer screening among Native Hawaiians Prev Med 2005 40 619 627 15850857 PMC2914227
  14. [18]Tu SP Taylor V Yasui Y Promoting culturally appropriate colorectal cancer screening through a health educator: a randomized controlled trial Cancer 2006 107 959 966 16865681
  15. [19]Courtier R Casamitjana M Macia F Participation in a colorectal cancer screening programme: influence of the method of contacting the target population Eur J Cancer Prev 2002 11 209 213 12131653
  16. [20]Hart AR Barone TL Gay SP The effect on compliance of a health education leaflet in colorectal cancer screening in general practice in central England Journal of Epidemiology & Community Health 1997 51 187 191 9196650 PMC1060443
  17. [21]Roetzheim RG Christman LK Jacobsen PB A randomized controlled trial to increase cancer screening among attendees of community health centers Ann Fam Med 2004 2 294 300 15335126 PMC1466693
  18. [22]Schroy PC Factors affecting provider use of screening sigmoidoscopy identified Gastroenterology 1999 117 304 311 10419910
  19. [23]Gray M Pennington CR Screening sigmoidoscopy: a randomised trial of invitation style Health Bull (Edinb) 2000 58 137 140 12813842
  20. [24]Myers RE Turner B Weinberg D Impact of a physician-oriented intervention on follow-up in colorectal cancer screening Preventive Medicine 2004 38 375 381 15020170
  21. [25]Denberg TD Coombes JM Byers TE Effect of a mailed brochure on appointment-keeping for screening colonoscopy: a randomized trial Annals of Internal Medicine 2006 145 895 900 17179058
  22. [26]Wardle J Williamson S McCaffery K Increasing Attendance at Colorectal Cancer Screening: Testing the Efficacy of Mailed, Psychoeducational Intervention in a Community Sample of Older Adults Health Psychology 2003 22 99 105 12558207
  23. [27]Zapka JG Lemon SC Puleo E Estabrook B Luckmann R Erban S Patient education for colon cancer screening: a randomized trial of a video mailed before a physical examination Ann Intern Med 2004 141 683 692 15520425
  24. [28]Turner BJ Weiner M Berry SD Lillie K Fosnocht K Hollenbeak CS Overcoming poor attendance to first scheduled colonoscopy: a randomized trial of peer coach or brochure support J Gen Intern Med 2008 23 58 63 18030540 PMC2173918
  25. [29]Schroy PC Heeren T Bliss CM Pincus J Wilson S Prout M Implementation of on-site screening sigmoidoscopy positively influences utilization by primary care providers Gastroenterology 1999 117 304 311 10419910
  26. [30]Myers RE Sifri R Hyslop T A randomized controlled trial of the impact of targeted and tailored interventions on colorectal cancer screening Cancer 2007 110 2083 2091 17893869
  27. [31]Basch CE Wolf RL Brouse CH Telephone Outreach to Increase Colorectal Cancer Screening in an Urban Minority Population American Journal of Public Health 2006 96 2246 2253 17077394 PMC1698159
  28. [32]Campbell MK James A Hudson MA Improving multiple behaviors for colorectal cancer prevention among African American church members Health Psychology 2004 23 492 502 15367069
  29. [33]Dietrich AJ Tobin JN Cassells A Telephone care management to improve cancer screening among low-income women: a randomized, controlled trial Annals of Internal Medicine 2006 144 563 571 16618953 PMC3841972
  30. [34]Jandorf L Gutierrez Y Lopez J Christie J Itzkowitz SH Use of a patient navigator to increase colorectal cancer screening in an urban neighborhood health clinic Journal of Urban Health 2005 82 216 224 15888638 PMC3456577
  31. [35]Segnan N Senore C Andreoni B Randomized trial of different screening strategies for colorectal cancer: patient response and detection rates J Natl Cancer Inst 2005 97 347 357 15741571
  32. [36]Walsh JM Salazar R Terdiman JP Gildengorin G Perez-Stable EJ Promoting use of colorectal cancer screening tests. Can we change physician behavior? J Gen Intern Med 2005 20 1097 1101 16423097 PMC1490293
  33. [37]Ferreira MR Dolan NC Fitzgibbon ML Health care provider-directed intervention to increase colorectal cancer screening among veterans: results of a randomized controlled trial J Clin Oncol 2005 23 1548 1554 15735130
  34. [38]Ruffin MTt Gorenflo DW Interventions fail to increase cancer screening rates in community-based primary care practices Prev Med 2004 39 435 440 15313081
  35. [39]Costanza ME Luckmann R Stoddard AM Using tailored telephone counseling to accelerate the adoption of colorectal cancer screening Cancer Detect Prev 2007 31 191 198 17646058
  36. [40]Marcus AC Mason M Wolfe P The efficacy of tailored print materials in promoting colorectal cancer screening: results from a randomized trial involving callers to the National Cancer Institute's Cancer Information Service J Health Commun 2005 10 Suppl 1 83 104 16377602
  37. [41]Tilley BC Vernon SW Myers R The Next Step Trial: impact of a worksite colorectal cancer screening promotion program Preventive Medicine 1999 28 276 283 10072746
  38. [42]Pignone M Harris R Kinsinger L Videotape-based decision aid for colon cancer screening. A randomized, controlled trial Annals of Internal Medicine 2000 133 761 769 11085838
  39. [43]Dolan JG Frisina S Randomized controlled trial of a patient decision aid for colorectal cancer screening Medical Decision Making 2002 22 125 139 11958495
  40. [44]Ruffin MTt Fetters MD Jimbo M Preference-based electronic decision aid to promote colorectal cancer screening: results of a randomized controlled trial Prev Med 2007 45 267 273 17689600
  41. [45]Church TR Yeazel MW Jones RM A randomized trial of direct mailing of fecal occult blood tests to increase colorectal cancer screening J Natl Cancer Inst 2004 96 770 780 15150305
  42. [46]Pingree S Hawkins R Baker T duBenske L Roberts LJ Gustafson DH The value of theory for enhancing and understanding e-health interventions Am J Prev Med 38 103 109 20117565 PMC2826889
  43. [48]Jemal A Siegel R Ward E Hao Y Xu J Thun MJ Cancer statistics, 2009 CA Cancer J Clin 2009 59 225 249 19474385
  44. [49]Pasick RJ Burke NJ A critical review of theory in breast cancer screening promotion across cultures Annu Rev Public Health 2008 29 351 368 17914932
  45. [50]Burke NJ Joseph G Pasick RJ Barker JC Theorizing social context: rethinking behavioral theory Health Educ Behav 2009 36 55S 70S 19805791 PMC3548316
  46. [51]Fisher TL Burnet DL Huang ES Chin MH Cagney KA Cultural leverage: interventions using culture to narrow racial disparities in health care Medical Care Research & Review 2007 64 243S 282S 17881628 PMC2505343
  47. [52]Glasgow RE Marcus AC Bull SS Wilson KM Disseminating effective cancer screening interventions Cancer 2004 101 1239 1250 15316911
  48. [53]Roetzheim RG Christman LK Jacobsen PB Schroeder J Abdulla R Hunter S Long-term results from a randomized controlled trial to increase cancer screening among attendees of community health centers Ann Fam Med 2005 3 109 114 15798035 PMC1466861
  49. [54]Hart AR Barone TL Mayberry JF Increasing compliance with colorectal cancer screening: the development of effective health education Health Education Research 1997 12 171 180 10168571

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Rawl, S. M., Menon, U., Burness, A., & Breslau, E. S.
Affiliations
  • Indiana University – Purdue University Indianapolis (US)
  • Mayo Clinic (US)
  • National Cancer Institute (US)
ORCID
Venue
Nursing Outlook
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2012-07
Volume
60
Issue
4
Pages
172-181.e13
ISSN
0029-6554 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1016/j.outlook.2011.11.003
PMC
PMC3366042
OpenAlex
W2036129061
Cited by
58
References
1
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2025: 4 · 2023: 2 · 2022: 1 · 2021: 3 · 2020: 4 · 2019: 8 · 2018: 5 · 2017: 1 · 2016: 6 · 2015: 7 · 2014: 7 · 2013: 6 · 2012: 2
FWCI
0.73
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • Nursing Outlook (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (acceptedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
  • IUScholarWorks (Indiana University) (submittedVersion)
Funders
  • National Institutes of Health (Z99 CA999999)
  • National Cancer Institute (Y99 CA999999)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Oncology › Colorectal Cancer Screening and Detection
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Oncology › Global Cancer Incidence and Screening
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Health Promotion and Cardiovascular Prevention
Keywords
colorectal cancer screening, behaviour change interventions, fecal occult blood test, sigmoidoscopy, colonoscopy, screening completion, primary care, community-based intervention, healthcare workers, intervention efficacy, theory-based intervention
MeSH terms
Health Promotion, Humans, Colorectal Neoplasms, Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic, Early Detection of Cancer

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