Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 755

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Participation in Colorectal Cancer Screening: A Review

Vernon, S. W.·1997·JNCI Journal of the National Cancer Institute

Abstract

The purpose of this review is to evaluate the published literature on adherence to colorectal cancer (CRC) screening with fecal occult blood testing (FOBT) and sigmoidoscopy. Specifically, the review addresses the following: 1) prevalence of FOBT and sigmoidoscopy; 2) interventions to increase adherence to FOBT and sigmoidoscopy; 3) correlates or predictors of adherence to FOBT and sigmoidoscopy; and 4) reasons for nonadherence. Other objectives are to put the literature on CRC screening adherence in the context of recently reported findings from experimental interventions to change prevention and early detection behaviors and to suggest directions for future research on CRC screening adherence. CRC screening offers the potential both for primary and for secondary prevention. Data from the 1992 National Health Interview Survey show that 26% of the population more than 49 years of age report FOBT within the past 3 years and 33% report ever having had sigmoidoscopy. The Year 2000 goals set forth in Healthy People 2000 are for 50% of the population more than 49 years of age to report FOBT within the past 2 years and for 40% to report that they ever had sigmoidoscopy. Thus, systematic efforts to increase CRC screening are warranted. To date, attempts to promote CRC screening have used both a public health model that targets entire communities, e.g., mass media campaigns, and a medical model that targets individuals, e.g., general practice patients. Most of these efforts, however, did not include systematic evaluation of strategies to increase adherence. The data on FOBT show that the median adherence rate to programmatic offers of FOBT is between 40% and 50%, depending on the type of population offered the test, e.g., patients or employees. Approximately, 50% of those initially offered testing in unselected populations will respond to minimal prompts or interventions. A salient issue for FOBT, however, is whether or not the behavior can be sustained over time. Fewer studies examined adherence to sigmoidoscopy. Adherence was highest in relatives of CRC cases and in employer-sponsored programs offered to workers at increased risk of CRC. At present, we know very little about the determinants of CRC screening behaviors, particularly as they relate to rescreening.

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.

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

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1093/jnci/89.19.1406

Cites

1 of 1 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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.

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

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

Show all 1 references

Cited by

See all 755

Metadata

Authors
Vernon, S. W.
Venue
JNCI Journal of the National Cancer Institute
Published
1997-10-01
Volume
89
Issue
19
Pages
1406-1422
ISSN
  • 0027-8874 (ISSN-L)
  • 1460-2105
OpenAlex
W2142217125
Cited by
755
References
1
FWCI
8.31
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: Participation in Colorectal Cancer Screening: A Review. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1093/jnci/89.19.1406
The paper
Vernon, S. W. (1997). Participation in Colorectal Cancer Screening: A Review. JNCI Journal of the National Cancer Institute. https://doi.org/10.1093/jnci/89.19.1406

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.