Abstract PO-058: Barriers and facilitators to colorectal cancer screening: A Utah community- based study

Author(s):  
Svenja Pauleck ◽  
Sheetal Hardikar ◽  
Jordan Esplin ◽  
Maranda Pahlkotter ◽  
Andrea Williamson ◽  
...  
Author(s):  
Victoria Earl ◽  
Derrick Beasley ◽  
Chengcheng Ye ◽  
Sean N. Halpin ◽  
Nicole Gauthreaux ◽  
...  

2015 ◽  
Vol 16 (5) ◽  
pp. 656-666 ◽  
Author(s):  
Navkiran K. Shokar ◽  
Theresa Byrd ◽  
David R. Lairson ◽  
Rebekah Salaiz ◽  
Junghyun Kim ◽  
...  

2007 ◽  
Vol 45 (5) ◽  
pp. 332-335 ◽  
Author(s):  
E.S.T. Ng ◽  
C.H. Tan ◽  
D.C.L. Teo ◽  
C.Y.E. Seah ◽  
K.H. Phua

2019 ◽  
Vol 25 (9) ◽  
pp. 1132-1141
Author(s):  
Radek Kroupa ◽  
Monika Ondrackova ◽  
Petra Kovalcikova ◽  
Milan Dastych ◽  
Tomas Pavlik ◽  
...  

2005 ◽  
Vol 12 (4_suppl) ◽  
pp. 58-69 ◽  
Author(s):  
Janice V. Bowie ◽  
Barbara A. Curbow ◽  
Mary A. Garza ◽  
Erin K. Dreyling ◽  
Lisa A. Benz Scott ◽  
...  

Although cancer-screening guidelines recommend periodic testing for women 50 years of age and older, these tests are underused. A search of databases identified 156 community-based breast, cervical, and colorectal cancer screening intervention studies published before April 2003. Most were conducted in the United States. More than half used randomization procedures or pre-post measures, and one third used both. Most reported significant intervention effects. Cervical and combined cervical and breast studies had higher rates of pre-post designs, and breast studies had the highest percentage using randomization. Although effective community-based breast and cervical interventions have been conducted, there is an urgent need for amplification of colorectal cancer screening.


2018 ◽  
Vol 155 (5) ◽  
pp. 1383-1391.e5 ◽  
Author(s):  
Theodore R. Levin ◽  
Douglas A. Corley ◽  
Christopher D. Jensen ◽  
Joanne E. Schottinger ◽  
Virginia P. Quinn ◽  
...  

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document