The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
A prospective, controlled assessment of factors influencing acceptance of screening colonoscopy
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: Medicare beneficiaries now have access to screening colonoscopy (SC). For colon cancer screening to be fruitful, SC must become more acceptable to a broad segment of this population. However, we currently lack knowledge of which aspects of SC have an impact on patient acceptance. The aims of this study were: 1) to identify the features of SC that are most important in deterring participation, and 2) to prioritize and to compare the perceptions of never-screened individuals with those of individuals previously screened for colon cancer. METHODS: Questionnaires were distributed to 300 outpatients at Mayo Clinic, Rochester (150 never-screened patients; 150 previously screened patients). The survey instrument addressed domains of the Health Belief Model and colon cancer risk perception. Patients ranked the three most important barriers to SC and answered general knowledge questions on colon cancer. RESULTS: Response rates of never-screened (84%) and screened (88%) patients were similar. Never-screened patients were less likely to have a regular primary physician (80% vs 95%, p = 0.0003) and were less likely to have undergone a prior screening mammography (87% vs 96% of women, p = 0.02) compared with screened patients. The four most reported deterrents to SC ("volume of bowel preparation," "adequate analgesia," "no recommendation from primary physician," and "embarrassment") were ranked similarly by both groups. Never-screened patients had less understanding of the incidence and treatment outcomes of colon cancer. CONCLUSION: Colon cancer screening behavior seems to be associated with having a regular primary physician, as well as other cancer screening behaviors. Knowledge of colon cancer is the most reliable discriminator of prior screening status. There does not seem to be any difference in the preferences expressed by never-screened and screened patients with respect to the aspects of colonoscopy that they find objectionable.
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
History of the Rochester Epidemiology Project
Melton, L. J. (1996) · Mayo Clinic Proceedings · doi:10.4065/71.3.266 · Cited by 1,443
Cited by
Effect of Screening Colonoscopy on Colorectal Cancer Incidence and Mortality
Kahi, C. J., Imperiale, T. F., Juliar, B. E., & Rex, D. K. (2009) · Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology · doi:10.1016/j.cgh.2008.12.030 · Cited by 433
Graser, A., Stieber, P., Nagel, D., Schafer, C., Horst, D., Becker, C. R., Nikolaou, K., Lottes, A., Geisbusch, S., Kramer, H., et al. (2009) · Gut · doi:10.1136/gut.2008.156448 · Cited by 389
Beydoun, H. A., & Beydoun, M. A. (2008) · Cancer Causes & Control · doi:10.1007/s10552-007-9100-y · Cited by 329
McLachlan, S.-A., Clements, A., & Austoker, J. (2012) · Patient Education and Counseling · doi:10.1016/j.pec.2011.04.010 · Cited by 271
Metadata
- Authors
- Harewood, G.
- Venue
- The American Journal of Gastroenterology
- Published
- 2002-12
- Volume
- 97
- Issue
- 12
- Pages
- 3186-3194
- ISSN
- 0002-9270 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W1980345149
- Cited by
- 319
- References
- 1
- FWCI
- 4.80
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
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: A prospective, controlled assessment of factors influencing acceptance of screening colonoscopy. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1016/s0002-9270(02)05546-6
- The paper
- Harewood, G. (2002). A prospective, controlled assessment of factors influencing acceptance of screening colonoscopy. The American Journal of Gastroenterology. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0002-9270(02)05546-6
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.