Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 289

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 39 of the 39 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Predictors of colorectal cancer screening participation in the United States

Ioannou, George N., Chapko, Michael K., Dominitz, Jason A.·2003·The American Journal of Gastroenterology

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: Our aim was to identify predictors of colorectal cancer screening in the United States and subgroups with particularly low rates of screening. METHODS: The responses to a telephone-administered questionnaire of a nationally representative sample of 61,068 persons aged >/=50 yr were analyzed. Current screening was defined as either sigmoidoscopy/colonoscopy in the preceding 5 years or fecal occult blood testing (FOBT) in the preceding year, or both. RESULTS: Overall, current colorectal cancer screening was reported by 43.4% (sigmoidoscopy/colonoscopy by 22.8%, FOBT by 9.9%, and both by 10.7%). The lowest rates of screening were reported by the following subgroups: those aged 50-54 yr (31.2%), Hispanics (31.2%), Asian/Pacific Islanders (34.8%), those with education less than the ninth grade (34.4%), no health care coverage (20.4%), or coverage by Medicaid (29.2%), those who had no routine doctor's visit in the last year (20.3%), and every-day smokers (32.1%). The most important modifiable predictors of current colorectal cancer screening were health care coverage (OR = 1.7, 95% CI = 1.5-1.9) and a routine doctor's visit in the last year (OR = 3.5, 95% CI = 3.2-3.8). FOBT was more common in women than in men (OR = 1.8, 95% CI = 1.6-2.0); sigmoidoscopy/colonoscopy was more common in Hispanics (OR = 1.4, 95% CI = 1.1-1.7) and Asian/Pacific Islanders (OR = 2.4, 95% = CI 1.5-3.9) relative to whites, in persons without routine doctor's visits in the preceding year (OR = 3.3, 95% CI = 2.8-4), and in persons with poor self-reported health (OR = 1.3, 95% CI = 1.2-1.5). CONCLUSIONS: Interventions should be developed to improve screening for the subgroups who reported the lowest screening rates. Such interventions may incorporate individual screening strategy preferences.

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 · 10.1111/j.1572-0241.2003.07574.x

Cites

39 of 39 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 39 references

Cited by

Metadata

Authors
Ioannou, G. N., Chapko, M. K., & Dominitz, J. A.
Venue
The American Journal of Gastroenterology
Published
2003-09
Volume
98
Issue
9
Pages
2082-2091
ISSN
  • 0002-9270 (ISSN-L)
  • 1572-0241
OpenAlex
W1965691247
Cited by
289
References
39
FWCI
3.88
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: Predictors of colorectal cancer screening participation in the United States. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1111/j.1572-0241.2003.07574.x
The paper
Ioannou, G. N., Chapko, M. K., & Dominitz, J. A. (2003). Predictors of colorectal cancer screening participation in the United States. The American Journal of Gastroenterology. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1572-0241.2003.07574.x

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.