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
. 2021 Jun:147:106517.
doi: 10.1016/j.ypmed.2021.106517. Epub 2021 Mar 9.

Promoting colorectal cancer screening: A scoping review of screening interventions and resources

Kelsey M Leach  1 , Marni E Granzow  1 , Madyson L Popalis  1 , Kelsey C Stoltzfus  1 , Jennifer L Moss  2
Affiliations

Promoting colorectal cancer screening: A scoping review of screening interventions and resources

Kelsey M Leach et al. Prev Med. 2021 Jun.

Abstract

Background: Early detection through screening can reduce colorectal cancer (CRC) mortality, but approximately 33% of adults aged 50-75 are not getting screened as recommended. Many interventions to increase CRC screening have been tested, but clinical and community organizations may be challenged in identifying the optimum programs and program materials to increase screening and ultimately reduce CRC mortality.

Methods: We conducted a scoping review to characterize existing, US-based interventions to improve CRC screening and to identify gaps in the literature. We used t-tests and correlations to analyze the relationship between project features and intervention effect sizes.

Results: The overall effect sizes were + 16% for changes in screening by any modality. The average effect sizes were greater for projects with more components, used patient navigation, and provided free/low-cost testing.

Conclusion: Interventions varied greatly in terms of follow-up time, test modality, and data sources. Organizations seeking to implement a program aimed at increasing CRC screening should consider both intervention components and relevant program materials.

Keywords: Colorectal neoplasms; Early detection of cancer; Endoscopy; Evidence-based medicine; Occult blood; Program evaluation; Review.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

COI: The authors have no potential conflicts of interest to disclose.

References

    1. Marley AR, Nan H. Epidemiology of colorectal cancer. International journal of molecular epidemiology and genetics. 2016;7(3):105–114. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Cancer Facts & Figures 2020. American Cancer Society. https://www.cancer.org/content/dam/cancer-org/research/cancer-facts-and-.... Published 2020. Accessed.
    1. Doubeni CA, Weinmann S, Adams K, et al. Screening colonoscopy and risk for incident late-stage colorectal cancer diagnosis in average-risk adults: a nested case-control study. Ann Intern Med. 2013;158(5 Pt 1):312–320. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Shapiro JA, Klabunde CN, Thompson TD, Nadel MR, Seeff LC, White A. Patterns of colorectal cancer test use, including CT colonography, in the 2010 National Health Interview Survey. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev. 2012;21(6):895–904. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Arksey H, O’Malley L. Scoping studies: towards a methodological framework. International Journal of Social Research Methodology. 2005;8(1):19–32.

Publication types