CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 8Colorectal Cancer Screening and DetectionDecision-Making and Behavioral EconomicsGlobal Cancer Incidence and Screening

Are behavioral economics interventions effective in increasing colorectal cancer screening uptake: A systematic review of evidence and meta-analysis?

Open access
Ahadinezhad, Bahman, Maleki, Aisa, Akhondi, Amirali, Kazemi, Mohammadjavad, Yousefy, Sama, Rezaei, Fatemeh, Khosravizadeh, Omid·2024·PLOS ONE
DOI 10.1371/journal.pone.0290424PMC PMC10843112
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

Various interventions have been investigated to improve the uptake of colorectal cancer screening. In this paper, the authors have attempted to provide a pooled estimate of the effect size of the BE interventions running a systematic review based meta-analysis. In this study, all the published literatures between 2000 and 2022 have been reviewed. Searches were performed in PubMed, Scopus and Cochrane databases. The main outcome was the demanding the one of the colorectal cancer screening tests. The quality assessment was done by two people so that each person evaluated the studies separately and independently based on the individual participant data the modified Jadad scale. Pooled effect size (odds ratio) was estimated using random effects model at 95% confidence interval. Galbraith, Forrest and Funnel plots were used in data analysis. Publication bias was also investigated through Egger’s test. All the analysis was done in STATA 15. From the initial 1966 records, 38 were included in the final analysis in which 72612 cases and 71493 controls have been studied. About 72% have been conducted in the USA. The heterogeneity of the studies was high based on the variation in OR (I 2 = 94.6%, heterogeneity X 2 = 670.01 (d.f. = 36), p < 0.01). The random effect pooled odds ratio (POR) of behavioral economics (BE) interventions was calculated as 1.26 (95% CI: 1.26 to 1.43). The bias coefficient is noteworthy (3.15) and statistically significant (p< 0.01). According to the results of this meta-analysis, health policy and decision makers can improve the efficiency and cost effectiveness of policies to control this type of cancer by using various behavioral economics interventions. It’s noteworthy that due to the impossibility of categorizing behavioral economics interventions; we could not perform by group analysis.

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 · 10.1371/journal.pone.0290424

Cites

5 of 5 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?

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: 78

  1. [1]<References>. Siegel R.L., et al., Cancer statistics, 2021. Ca Cancer J Clin, 2021. 71(1): p. 7– 33. doi: 10.3322/caac.21654 33433946 · DOI · Paper page
  2. [3]Vos T., et al., Global burden of 369 diseases and injuries in 204 countries and territories, 1990–2019: a systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2019. The Lancet, 2020. 396(10258): p. 1204– 1222. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(20)30925-9 33069326 PMC7567026 · DOI · Paper page
  3. [4]Sharma R., et al., Global, regional, and national burden of colorectal cancer and its risk factors, 1990–2019: a systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2019. The Lancet Gastroenterology & Hepatology, 2022. doi: 10.1016/S2468-1253(22)00044-9 35397795 PMC9192760 · DOI
  4. [5]Davidson K.W., et al., Screening for colorectal cancer: US Preventive Services Task Force recommendation statement. Jama, 2021. 325(19): p. 1965– 1977. doi: 10.1001/jama.2021.6238 34003218 · DOI
  5. [7]Shaukat A. and Lehenbauer K.P., Screening for Colorectal Neoplasia. N Engl J Med, 2017. 376(16): p. 1599. doi: 10.1056/NEJMc1702535 28423295 · DOI
  6. [8]Taylor L.C., et al., Effectiveness of behavioural economics-based interventions to improve colorectal cancer screening participation: A rapid systematic review of randomised controlled trials. Preventive Medicine Reports, 2022. 26. doi: 10.1016/j.pmedr.2022.101747 35284211 PMC8914541 · DOI
  7. [9]Leach K.M., et al., Promoting colorectal cancer screening: A scoping review of screening interventions and resources. Preventive medicine, 2021. 147: p. 106517. doi: 10.1016/j.ypmed.2021.106517 33711351 PMC8096709 · DOI
  8. [10]Schliemann D., et al., The implementation of colorectal cancer screening interventions in low-and middle-income countries: a scoping review. Bmc Cancer, 2021. 21: p. 1– 16. 34666704 PMC8524916
  9. [11]Senore C., et al., Optimising colorectal cancer screening acceptance: a review. Gut, 2015. 64(7): p. 1158– 1177. doi: 10.1136/gutjnl-2014-308081 26059765 · DOI · Paper page
  10. [12]Dolan P., et al., Influencing behaviour: The mindspace way. Journal of economic psychology, 2012. 33(1): p. 264– 277.
  11. [13]Purnell J.Q., et al., Peer reviewed: Behavioral economics:“nudging” underserved populations to be screened for cancer. Preventing Chronic Disease, 2015. 12. PMC4307834 25590600
  12. [14]The rise of behavioural economics. Nat Hum Behav, 2017. 1(11): p. 767. 31024129
  13. [15]Thaler R.H. and Sunstein C.R., Nudge: Improving decisions about health, wealth, and happiness. 2009: Penguin.
  14. [16]Huf S.W., et al., Text messaging and opt-out mailed outreach in colorectal cancer screening: a randomized clinical trial. Journal of General Internal Medicine, 2021. 36: p. 1958– 1964. doi: 10.1007/s11606-020-06415-8 33511567 PMC8298623 · DOI
  15. [17]Bakr O., et al., Application of behavioral economics principles improves participation in mailed outreach for colorectal cancer screening. Clinical and translational gastroenterology, 2020. 11(1). doi: 10.14309/ctg.0000000000000115 31972609 PMC7056051 · DOI
  16. [18]Lieberman A., et al., Financial Incentives to Promote Colorectal Cancer Screening: A Longitudinal Randomized Control TrialFinancial Incentives to Promote Colorectal Cancer Screening. Cancer Epidemiology, Biomarkers & Prevention, 2019. 28(11): p. 1902– 1908. PMC7008465 31387970
  17. [19]Green B.B., et al., Financial incentives to increase colorectal cancer screening uptake and decrease disparities: a randomized clinical trial. JAMA network open, 2019. 2(7): p. e196570– e196570. doi: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2019.6570 31276178 PMC6789432 · DOI
  18. [20]Nisa C.F., Bélanger J.J., and Schumpe B.M., Parts greater than their sum: randomized controlled trial testing partitioned incentives to increase cancer screening. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 2019. 1449(1): p. 46– 55. doi: 10.1111/nyas.14115 31111509 · DOI · Paper page
  19. [21]Slater J.S., et al., The Efficacy of Direct Mail, Patient Navigation, and Incentives for Increasing Mammography and Colonoscopy in the Medicaid Population: A Randomized Controlled TrialRCT to Increase Cancer Screening among Medicaid Clients. Cancer Epidemiology, Biomarkers & Prevention, 2018. 27(9): p. 1047– 1056. PMC6125204 29891726
  20. [22]Mehta S.J., et al., A Randomized Controlled Trial of Opt‐in Versus Opt‐Out Colorectal Cancer Screening Outreach. The American Journal of Gastroenterology, 2018. 113(12): p. 1848. doi: 10.1038/s41395-018-0151-3 29925915 PMC6768589 · DOI
  21. [23]Mehta S.J., et al., Active Choice and Financial Incentives to Increase Rates of Screening Colonoscopy-A Randomized Controlled Trial. Gastroenterology, 2017. 153(5): p. 1227– 1229.e2. doi: 10.1053/j.gastro.2017.07.015 28734830 PMC5669820 · DOI
  22. [24]Ritvo P.G., et al., Personal Navigation Increases Colorectal Cancer Screening UptakePersonal Navigation in Colorectal Cancer Screening. Cancer Epidemiology, Biomarkers & Prevention, 2015. 24(3): p. 506– 511. 25378365
  23. [25]Kullgren J.T., et al., Financial incentives for completion of fecal occult blood tests among veterans: a 2-stage, pragmatic, cluster, randomized, controlled trial. Annals of internal medicine, 2014. 161(10_Supplement): p. S35– S43. doi: 10.7326/M13-3015 25402401 · DOI
  24. [26]Van Roosbroeck S., Hoeck S., and Van Hal G., Population-based screening for colorectal cancer using an immunochemical faecal occult blood test: a comparison of two invitation strategies. Cancer epidemiology, 2012. 36(5): p. e317– e324. doi: 10.1016/j.canep.2012.04.003 22560885 · DOI
  25. [28]Thompson S.G. and Higgins J.P., How should meta‐regression analyses be undertaken and interpreted? Statistics in medicine, 2002. 21(11): p. 1559– 1573. doi: 10.1002/sim.1187 12111920 · DOI · Paper page
  26. [29]Brenner A.T., et al., Colorectal cancer screening in vulnerable patients: promoting informed and shared decisions. American journal of preventive medicine, 2016. 51(4): p. 454– 462. doi: 10.1016/j.amepre.2016.03.025 27242081 PMC5501711 · DOI
  27. [30]Clouston K., et al., Does access to a colorectal cancer screening website and/or a nurse-managed telephone help line provided to patients by their family physician increase fecal occult blood test uptake?: results from a pragmatic cluster randomized controlled trial. BMC cancer, 2014. 14(1): p. 1– 11. doi: 10.1186/1471-2407-14-263 24739235 PMC4023547 · DOI
  28. [31]Gabel P., et al., The LEAD trial—The effectiveness of a decision aid on decision making among citizens with lower educational attainment who have not participated in FIT-based colorectal cancer screening in Denmark: A randomised controlled trial. Patient Education and Counseling, 2020. 103(2): p. 359– 368. doi: 10.1016/j.pec.2019.08.029 31451360 · DOI
  29. [32]Lipkus I.M., et al., Increasing colorectal cancer screening among individuals in the carpentry trade: test of risk communication interventions. Preventive medicine, 2005. 40(5): p. 489– 501. doi: 10.1016/j.ypmed.2004.09.019 15749130 · DOI
  30. [33]Lo S.H., et al., Preformulated implementation intentions to promote colorectal cancer screening: a cluster-randomized trial. Health Psychology, 2014. 33(9): p. 998. doi: 10.1037/a0033507 24245844 · DOI
  31. [34]Mehta S.J., et al., Effect of Financial Incentives on Patient Use of Mailed Colorectal Cancer Screening Tests: A Randomized Clinical Trial. JAMA Netw Open, 2019. 2(3): p. e191156. doi: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2019.1156 30901053 PMC6583304 · DOI
  32. [35]Mehta S.J., et al., Effect of Sequential or Active Choice for Colorectal Cancer Screening Outreach: A Randomized Clinical Trial. JAMA Netw Open, 2019. 2(8): p. e1910305. doi: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2019.10305 31469393 PMC6724166 · DOI
  33. [36]Mehta S.J., et al., Effect of Behavioral Economic Incentives for Colorectal Cancer Screening in a Randomized Trial. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol, 2021. 19(8): p. 1635– 1641.e1. doi: 10.1016/j.cgh.2020.06.047 32623005 PMC7775888 · DOI
  34. [37]Mehta S.J., et al., Text messaging and lottery incentive to improve colorectal cancer screening outreach at a community health center: A randomized controlled trial. Prev Med Rep, 2020. 19: p. 101114. doi: 10.1016/j.pmedr.2020.101114 32477853 PMC7251946 · DOI
  35. [38]Menon U., et al., A randomized trial comparing the effect of two phone-based interventions on colorectal cancer screening adherence. Annals of Behavioral Medicine, 2011. 42(3): p. 294– 303. doi: 10.1007/s12160-011-9291-z 21826576 PMC3232176 · DOI
  36. [39]Miller D.P. Jr, et al., Effect of a digital health intervention on receipt of colorectal cancer screening in vulnerable patients: a randomized controlled trial. Annals of internal medicine, 2018. 168(8): p. 550– 557. doi: 10.7326/M17-2315 29532054 PMC6033519 · DOI
  37. [40]Miller D.P. Jr, et al., Effectiveness of a web-based colorectal cancer screening patient decision aid: a randomized controlled trial in a mixed-literacy population. American journal of preventive medicine, 2011. 40(6): p. 608– 615. doi: 10.1016/j.amepre.2011.02.019 21565651 PMC3480321 · DOI
  38. [41]Myers R.E., et al., A randomized controlled trial of the impact of targeted and tailored interventions on colorectal cancer screening. Cancer, 2007. 110(9): p. 2083– 2091. doi: 10.1002/cncr.23022 17893869 · DOI
  39. [42]Myers R.E., et al., A randomized controlled trial of a tailored navigation and a standard intervention in colorectal cancer screening. Cancer epidemiology, biomarkers & prevention, 2013. 22(1): p. 109– 117. doi: 10.1158/1055-9965.EPI-12-0701 23118143 PMC5537598 · DOI
  40. [43]Myers R.E., et al., Increasing colon cancer screening in primary care among African Americans. Journal of the National Cancer Institute, 2014. 106(12): p. dju344. doi: 10.1093/jnci/dju344 25481829 PMC4817126 · DOI
  41. [44]Neter E., et al., From the bench to public health: population-level implementation intentions in colorectal cancer screening. American journal of preventive medicine, 2014. 46(3): p. 273– 280. doi: 10.1016/j.amepre.2013.11.008 24512866 · DOI · Paper page
  42. [45]O’Carroll R.E., et al., Anticipated regret to increase uptake of colorectal cancer screening (ARTICS): a randomised controlled trial. Social Science & Medicine, 2015. 142: p. 118– 127. doi: 10.1016/j.socscimed.2015.07.026 26301484 PMC4576211 · DOI
  43. [46]Pignone M., et al., Effectiveness of a patient and practice‐level colorectal cancer screening intervention in health plan members: the CHOICE trial. Cancer, 2011. 117(15): p. 3352– 3362. doi: 10.1002/cncr.25924 21319147 PMC3136553 · DOI
  44. [47]Schroy P.C. III, et al., The impact of a novel computer-based decision aid on shared decision making for colorectal cancer screening: a randomized trial. Medical Decision Making, 2011. 31(1): p. 93– 107. doi: 10.1177/0272989X10369007 20484090 PMC4165390 · DOI
  45. [48]Schwartz P.H., et al., Providing quantitative information and a nudge to undergo stool testing in a colorectal cancer screening decision aid: a randomized clinical trial. Medical Decision Making, 2017. 37(6): p. 688– 702. doi: 10.1177/0272989X17698678 28398836 · DOI
  46. [49]Steckelberg A., et al., Effect of evidence based risk information on “informed choice” in colorectal cancer screening: randomised controlled trial. Bmj, 2011. 342. doi: 10.1136/bmj.d3193 21636633 PMC3106362 · DOI
  47. [51]Stoffel S., et al., Testing messages from behavioral economics to improve participation in a population-based colorectal cancer screening program in Cyprus: Results from two randomized controlled trials. Preventive medicine reports, 2021. 24: p. 101499. doi: 10.1016/j.pmedr.2021.101499 34430189 PMC8371188 · DOI
  48. [52]Trevena L.J., Irwig L., and Barratt A., Randomized trial of a self-administered decision aid for colorectal cancer screening. Journal of medical screening, 2008. 15(2): p. 76– 82. doi: 10.1258/jms.2008.007110 18573775 · DOI
  49. [54]Wardle J., et al., Increasing attendance at colorectal cancer screening: testing the efficacy of a mailed, psychoeducational intervention in a community sample of older adults. Health Psychology, 2003. 22(1): p. 99. doi: 10.1037//0278-6133.22.1.99 12558207 · DOI
  50. [56]Mertens S., et al., The effectiveness of nudging: A meta-analysis of choice architecture interventions across behavioral domains. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 2022. 119(1): p. e2107346118. PMC8740589 34983836
  51. [57]Beshears J. and Kosowsky H., Nudging: Progress to date and future directions. Organizational behavior and human decision processes, 2020. 161: p. 3– 19. doi: 10.1016/j.obhdp.2020.09.001 33716395 PMC7946162 · DOI
  52. [59]Blaga O.M., Vasilescu L., and Chereches R.M., Use and effectiveness of behavioural economics in interventions for lifestyle risk factors of non-communicable diseases: a systematic review with policy implications. Perspectives in public health, 2018. 138(2): p. 100– 110. doi: 10.1177/1757913917720233 28715989 PMC5748366 · DOI
  53. [60]Broers V.J., et al., A systematic review and meta-analysis of the effectiveness of nudging to increase fruit and vegetable choice. The European Journal of Public Health, 2017. 27(5): p. 912– 920. doi: 10.1093/eurpub/ckx085 28655176 · DOI
  54. [61]Vandenplas Y., et al., Applications of Behavioral Economics to Pharmaceutical Policymaking: A Scoping Review with Implications for Best-Value Biological Medicines. Applied health economics and health policy, 2022: p. 1– 15. doi: 10.1007/s40258-022-00751-y 35972683 PMC9379236 · DOI
  55. [62]Henriquez‐Camacho C., et al., Opt‐out screening strategy for HIV infection among patients attending emergency departments: systematic review and meta‐analysis. Hiv medicine, 2017. 18(6): p. 419– 429. doi: 10.1111/hiv.12474 28000338 · DOI
  56. [63]Asgary R., Naderi R., and Wisnivesky J., Opt-out patient navigation to improve breast and cervical cancer screening among homeless women. Journal of Women’s Health, 2017. 26(9): p. 999– 1003. doi: 10.1089/jwh.2016.6066 28103125 · DOI
  57. [64]Long R., et al., A 10-year population based study of ‘opt-out’HIV testing of tuberculosis patients in Alberta, Canada: National implications. PLoS One, 2014. 9(6): p. e98993. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0098993 24911262 PMC4049754 · DOI
  58. [65]Richter K.P., et al., The Effects of Opt-out vs Opt-in Tobacco Treatment on Engagement, Cessation, and Costs: A Randomized Clinical Trial. JAMA Internal Medicine, 2023. 183(4): p. 331– 339. doi: 10.1001/jamainternmed.2022.7170 36848129 PMC9972241 · DOI
  59. [67]Coronado G.D., et al., Characteristics of patient navigation programs in the Cancer Moonshot ACCSIS colorectal cancer screening initiative. JNCI: Journal of the National Cancer Institute, 2023: p. djad032. doi: 10.1093/jnci/djad032 36810931 PMC10248850 · DOI
  60. [68]McBrien K.A., et al., Patient navigators for people with chronic disease: a systematic review. PloS one, 2018. 13(2): p. e0191980. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0191980 29462179 PMC5819768 · DOI · Paper page
  61. [69]Enard K., et al., Patient navigation to increase colorectal cancer screening among Latino Medicare enrollees: a randomized controlled trial. Cancer Causes & Control, 2015. 26: p. 1351– 1359. doi: 10.1007/s10552-015-0620-6 26109462 PMC5215648 · DOI
  62. [70]Thom D.H., et al., Impact of peer health coaching on glycemic control in low-income patients with diabetes: a randomized controlled trial. The Annals of Family Medicine, 2013. 11(2): p. 137– 144. doi: 10.1370/afm.1443 23508600 PMC3601392 · DOI
  63. [71]Lasser K.E., et al., Patient navigation to promote smoking cessation among low-income primary care patients: a pilot randomized controlled trial. Journal of ethnicity in substance abuse, 2013. 12(4): p. 374– 390. doi: 10.1080/15332640.2013.819311 24215228 PMC3827692 · DOI
  64. [72]Quintiliani L.M., et al., Patient navigation and financial incentives to promote smoking cessation in an underserved primary care population: A randomized controlled trial protocol. Contemporary Clinical Trials, 2015. 45: p. 449– 457. doi: 10.1016/j.cct.2015.09.005 26362691 · DOI
  65. [73]Sieverding M., Matterne U., and Ciccarello L., What role do social norms play in the context of men’s cancer screening intention and behavior? Application of an extended theory of planned behavior. Health psychology, 2010. 29(1): p. 72. doi: 10.1037/a0016941 20063938 · DOI
  66. [74]Liu C.-W., et al. Leveraging Social Norms and Implementation Intentions for Better Health. in Smart Health: International Conference, ICSH 2017, Hong Kong, China, June 26– 2 7, 2017, Proceedings. 2017. Springer.
  67. [75]Bronchetti E.T., et al., When a nudge isn’t enough: Defaults and saving among low-income tax filers. National Tax Journal, 2013. 66(3): p. 609– 634.
  68. [76]Beshears J., et al., Borrowing to save? The impact of automatic enrollment on debt. The Journal of Finance, 2022. 77(1): p. 403– 447.
  69. [77]Kuyer P. and Gordijn B., Nudge in perspective: A systematic literature review on the ethical issues with nudging. Rationality and Society, 2023. 35(2): p. 191– 230.
  70. [78]Nwafor O., et al., Effectiveness of nudges as a tool to promote adherence to guidelines in healthcare and their organizational implications: a systematic review. Social Science & Medicine, 2021. 286: p. 114321. doi: 10.1016/j.socscimed.2021.114321 34438185 · DOI
  71. [79]Möllenkamp M., Zeppernick M., and Schreyögg J., The effectiveness of nudges in improving the self-management of patients with chronic diseases: a systematic literature review. Health Policy, 2019. 123(12): p. 1199– 1209. doi: 10.1016/j.healthpol.2019.09.008 31676042 · DOI
  72. [80]Gallagher K.M. and Updegraff J.A., Health message framing effects on attitudes, intentions, and behavior: a meta-analytic review. Annals of behavioral medicine, 2012. 43(1): p. 101– 116. doi: 10.1007/s12160-011-9308-7 21993844 · DOI
  73. [81]Skinner C.S., Strecher V.J., and Hospers H., Physicians’ recommendations for mammography: do tailored messages make a difference? American Journal of Public Health, 1994. 84(1): p. 43– 49. doi: 10.2105/ajph.84.1.43 8279610 PMC1614921 · DOI
  74. [82]Liang S.-Y., et al., Effects of Behavioral Economics–Based Messaging on Appointment Scheduling Through Patient Portals and Appointment Completion: Observational Study. JMIR Human Factors, 2022. 9(1): p. e34090. doi: 10.2196/34090 35353051 PMC9008532 · DOI
  75. [83]Fukuma S., et al., Effect of nudge-based intervention on adherence to physician visit recommendations and early health outcomes among individuals identified with chronic kidney disease in screens. Journal of the American Society of Nephrology, 2022. 33(1): p. 175– 185. doi: 10.1681/ASN.2021050664 34903568 PMC8763194 · DOI
  76. [84]Quinn E.L., et al., Peer reviewed: effects of a behavioral economics intervention on food choice and food consumption in middle-school and high-school cafeterias. Preventing chronic disease, 2018. 15. PMC6040595 29981258
  77. [85]Andrawis A., et al., Applying Behavioural Insights to HIV Prevention and Management: a Scoping Review. Current HIV/AIDS Reports, 2022: p. 1– 17. 35930186 PMC9508055
  78. [86]Benartzi S., et al., Should governments invest more in nudging? Psychological science, 2017. 28(8): p. 1041– 1055. doi: 10.1177/0956797617702501 28581899 PMC5549818 · DOI

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Ahadinezhad, B., Maleki, A., Akhondi, A., Kazemi, M., Yousefy, S., Rezaei, F., & Khosravizadeh, O.
Affiliations
Qazvin University of Medical Sciences (IR)
Corresponding author
Khosravizadeh, Omid
ORCID
Venue
PLOS ONE
Publisher
Public Library of Science (PLoS)
Published
2024-02-05
Volume
19
Issue
2
Pages
e0290424
ISSN
1932-6203 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1371/journal.pone.0290424
PMC
PMC10843112
OpenAlex
W4391529253
Cited by
8
References
5
Citations by year
2026: 3 · 2025: 5
FWCI
0.43
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • PLoS ONE (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • RePEc: Research Papers in Economics (submittedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Oncology › Colorectal Cancer Screening and Detection
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › General Decision Sciences › Decision-Making and Behavioral Economics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Oncology › Global Cancer Incidence and Screening
Keywords
colorectal cancer screening, screening uptake, health behavior change, health policy, cost-effectiveness
MeSH terms
Humans, Mass Screening, Colorectal Neoplasms, Early Detection of Cancer, Economics, Behavioral

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