Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Meta-Analysis
. 2015 Dec;38(6):837-50.
doi: 10.1007/s10865-015-9668-8. Epub 2015 Aug 18.

Does colorectal cancer risk perception predict screening behavior? A systematic review and meta-analysis

Affiliations
Meta-Analysis

Does colorectal cancer risk perception predict screening behavior? A systematic review and meta-analysis

Thomas M Atkinson et al. J Behav Med. 2015 Dec.

Abstract

Although health behavior theories postulate that risk perception should motivate colorectal cancer (CRC) screening, this relationship is unclear. This meta-analysis aims to examine the relationship between CRC risk perception and screening behavior, while considering potential moderators and study quality. A search of six databases yielded 58 studies (63 effect sizes) that quantitatively assessed the relationship between CRC risk perception and screening behavior. Most included effect sizes (75 %) reported a positive association between CRC risk perception and screening behavior. A random effects meta-analysis yielded an overall effect size of z = 0.13 (95 % CI 0.10-0.16), which was heterogeneous (I (2) = 99 %, τ(2) = 0.01). Effect sizes from high-quality studies were significantly lower than those from lower quality studies (z = 0.02 vs. 0.16). We found a small, positive relationship between CRC risk perception and reported screening behavior, with important identified heterogeneity across moderators. Future studies should focus on high quality study design.

Keywords: Colorectal neoplasms; Early detection of cancer; Meta-analysis; Patient-reported outcomes; Perceived risk.

PubMed Disclaimer

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
PRISMA Flow Chart
Figure 2
Figure 2
Forest Plot of Meta-Analysis Effect Sizes
Figure 3
Figure 3
Funnel Plot with Pseudo 95% Confidence Limits

References

    1. American Cancer Society. [Accessed 31 July 2015];Cancer Facts & Figures 2015. Available from: http://www.cancer.org/acs/groups/content/@editorial/documents/document/a....
    1. Azaiza F, Cohen M. Colorectal cancer screening, intentions, and predictors in Jewish and Arab Israelis: a population-based study. Health Educ Behav. 2008;35:478–493. doi: 10.1177/1090198106297045. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Bae N, Park S, Lim S. Factors associated with adherence to fecal occult blood testing for colorectal cancer screening among adults in the Republic of Korea. Eur J Oncol Nurs. 2014;18:72–77. doi: 10.1016/j.ejon.2013.09.001. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Baier M, Calonge N, Cutter G, McClatchey M, Schoentgen S, Hines S, Ahnen D. Validity of self-reported colorectal cancer screening behavior. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev. 2000;9:229–232. - PubMed
    1. Bastani R, Glenn BA, Maxwell AE, Ganz PA, Mojica CM, Chang LC. Validation of self-reported colorectal cancer (CRC) screening in a study of ethnically diverse first-degree relatives of CRC cases. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev. 2008;17:791–798. doi: 10.1158/1055-9965.EPI-07-2625. - DOI - PubMed

Publication types

MeSH terms

LinkOut - more resources