The DOI matches its Crossref record; 60 of the 60 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Impact of provider-patient communication on cancer screening adherence: A systematic review
Open accessAbstract
Cancer screening is critical for early detection and a lack of screening is associated with late-stage diagnosis and lower survival rates. The goal of this review was to analyze studies that focused on the role of provider-patient communication in screening behavior for cervical, breast, and colorectal cancer. A comprehensive search was conducted in four online databases between 1992 and 2016. Studies were included when the provider being studied was a primary care provider and the communication was face-to-face. The search resulted in 3252 records for review and 35 articles were included in the review. Studies were divided into three categories: studies comparing recommendation status to screening compliance; studies examining the relationship between communication quality and screening behavior; and intervention studies that used provider communication to improve screening behavior. There is overwhelming evidence that provider recommendation significantly improves screening rates. Studies examining quality of communication are heterogeneous in method, operationalization and results, but suggest giving information and shared decision making had a significant relationship with screening behavior. Intervention studies were similarly heterogeneous and showed positive results of communication interventions on screening behavior. Overall, results suggest that provider recommendation is necessary but not sufficient for optimal adherence to cancer screening guidelines. Quality studies suggest that provider-patient communication is more nuanced than just a simple recommendation. Discussions surrounding the recommendation may have an important bearing on a person's decision to get screened. Research needs to move beyond studies examining recommendations and adherence and focus more on the relationship between communication quality and screening adherence.
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
Cites
Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses: the PRISMA statement
Moher, D., Liberati, A., Tetzlaff, J., Altman, D. G., & for the PRISMA Group (2009) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.b2535 · Cited by 83,823
Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA Statement.
(2009) · PubMed Central · Cited by 44,859
Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses: The PRISMA Statement
Moher, D., Liberati, A., Tetzlaff, J., & Altman, D. G. (2009) · Journal of Clinical Epidemiology · doi:10.1016/j.jclinepi.2009.06.005 · Cited by 19,575
Levin, B., Lieberman, D. A., McFarland, B., Andrews, K. S., Brooks, D., Bond, J., Dash, C., Giardiello, F. M., Glick, S., Johnson, D., et al. (2008) · Gastroenterology · doi:10.1053/j.gastro.2008.02.002 · Cited by 2,990
Screening for Lung Cancer: U.S. Preventive Services Task Force Recommendation Statement
Moyer, V. A., & on behalf of the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force* (2014) · Annals of Internal Medicine · doi:10.7326/m13-2771 · Cited by 2,632
Levin, B., Lieberman, D. A., McFarland, B., Smith, R. A., Brooks, D., Andrews, K. S., Dash, C., Giardiello, F. M., Glick, S., Levin, T. R., et al. (2008) · CA: A Cancer Journal for Clinicians · doi:10.3322/ca.2007.0018 · Cited by 1,801
The effect of patient race and socio-economic status on physicians' perceptions of patients
van Ryn, M., & Burke, J. (2000) · Social Science & Medicine · doi:10.1016/s0277-9536(99)00338-x · Cited by 1,509 · cited 1×
“There is also some evidence that the quality of communication cancer screening decisions may be influenced by providers’ own biases and expectations about a patient’s likely adherence, as has been suggested in other clinical contexts (47, 48).”
BackgroundScreening for Breast Cancer: An Update for the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force
Nelson, H. D., Tyne, K., Naik, A., Bougatsos, C., Chan, B. K., & Humphrey, L. (2009) · Annals of Internal Medicine · doi:10.7326/0003-4819-151-10-200911170-00009 · Cited by 1,248
Where Is the Evidence? A Systematic Review of Shared Decision Making and Patient Outcomes
Shay, L. A., & Lafata, J. E. (2015) · Medical Decision Making · doi:10.1177/0272989x14551638 · Cited by 1,214
Patient preferences for shared decisions: A systematic review
Chewning, B., Bylund, C. L., Shah, B., Arora, N. K., Gueguen, J. A., & Makoul, G. (2012) · Patient Education and Counseling · doi:10.1016/j.pec.2011.02.004 · Cited by 849
Self-citation
Cited by
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
ACG Clinical Guidelines: Colorectal Cancer Screening 2021
Shaukat, A., Kahi, C. J., Burke, C. A., Rabeneck, L., Sauer, B. G., & Rex, D. K. (2021) · American Journal of Gastroenterology · doi:10.14309/ajg.0000000000001122 · Cited by 853
Lampert, S. L., Feldman, E. C. H., Durkin, L. K., Davies, W. H., & Greenley, R. N. (2022) · Children's Health Care · doi:10.1080/02739615.2021.1971986 · Cited by 3
An overview of factors influencing cancer screening uptake in primary healthcare institutions
Prusaczyk, A., Żuk, P., Guzek, M., Bogdan, M., Nitsch-Osuch, A., Oberska, J., & Karczmarz, S. (2022) · Family Medicine & Primary Care Review · doi:10.5114/fmpcr.2022.113019 · Cited by 3
Metadata
- Authors
- Peterson, E. B., Ostroff, J. S., DuHamel, K. N., D'Agostino, T. A., Hernandez, M., Canzona, M. R., & Bylund, C. L.
- Venue
- Preventive Medicine
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2016-12
- Volume
- 93
- Pages
- 96-105
- ISSN
- 0091-7435 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2527645041
- Cited by
- 308
- References
- 60
- FWCI
- 4.89
- 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: Impact of provider-patient communication on cancer screening adherence: A systematic review. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1016/j.ypmed.2016.09.034
- The paper
- Peterson, E. B., Ostroff, J. S., DuHamel, K. N., D'Agostino, T. A., Hernandez, M., Canzona, M. R., & Bylund, C. L. (2016). Impact of provider-patient communication on cancer screening adherence: A systematic review. Preventive Medicine. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ypmed.2016.09.034
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.
