Table 1.
Demographic and Clinical Characteristics of Studies (K = 58) by Study Quality
| Study | N | Screening Test | Design | Risk Level | % ≤ HS | % Non-White | USA/Int. | Recruit. Rate | Exclude Test/Sx | PRM | #PR Items | Data Source |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| (Bazargan, Ani, Bazargan-Hejazi, Baker, & Bastani, 2009)± | 302 | FOBT, FS, Colonoscopy | Pros. | General | NR | 96% | USA | 97% | Yes | SC | 1 | Chart |
| (Dear, Scott, Chambers, Corbett, & Taupin, 2008)± | 404 | Colonoscopy | Cross | General | NR | NR | USA | 65% | Yes | NuA | 1 | Chart |
| (Gorin, 2005)± | 950 | FOBT | Pros. | General | 99% | 100% | USA | 79% | Yes | SC | 1 | Chart |
| (K. Kim, Chapman, & Vallina, 2012)± | 111 | FOBT | Cross | General | NR | NR | USA | 69% | No | VA | 2 | Chart |
| (Kremers, Mesters, Pladdet, van den Borne, & Stockbrugger, 2000)± | 131 | FS | Pros. | General | NR | NR | Int. | 75% | No | VA, SC | 4 | Chart |
| (Lipkus et al., 2000)± | 435 | FOBT | Pros. | General | 65% | 79% | USA | 76% | Yes | VA, SC | 2 | Patient |
| (Madlensky, Esplen, Gallinger, McLaughlin, & Goel, 2003)± | 368 | FOBT, FS, Colonoscopy | Cross | High | 100% | NR | Int. | 69% | Yes | VA | 1 | Chart |
| (Manne et al., 2002)± | 504 | FOBT, FS, Colonoscopy | Cross | High | 29% | 7% | USA | 66% | Yes | NuA | 5 | Chart |
| (Matthews, Nattinger, Venkatesan, Shaker, & Anderson, 2007)± | 149 | FOBT, FS, Colonoscopy | Cross | General | 60% | 64% | USA | 87% | No | SC | 2 | Chart |
| (W.Y. Sun, 2010)± | 288 | FOBT, FS, Colonoscopy | Cross | General | 53% | 100% | USA | 86% | No | VA | 5 | Chart |
| (Taniguchi et al., 2014)± | 56 | Colonoscopy | Cross | General | 68% | 100% | Int. | 65% | No | NuA, SC | 6 | Chart |
| (Taouqi, Ingrand, Beauchant, Migeot, & Ingrand, 2010)± | 172 | Colonoscopy | Cross | General | 47% | NR | Int. | 69% | Yes | VA | 5 | Patient |
|
| ||||||||||||
| (Azaiza & Cohen, 2008) | 472 | FOBT, FS, Colonoscopy | Cross | General | NR | NR | Int. | 43% | No | SC | 2 | Patient |
| (Bae, Park, & Lim, 2014) | 237 | FOBT | Cross | General | 24% | 100% | Int. | 89% | No | VA | 5 | Patient |
| (Blalock, DeVellis, Afifi, & Sandler, 1990) | 295 | FOBT | Pros. | High | NR | 40% | USA | 57% | No | VA, SC | 2 | Chart |
| (Bleiker et al., 2005) | 132 | FS, Colonoscopy | Cross | High | NR | NR | Int. | 84% | No | NuA | 1 | Chart |
| (Brawarsky, Brooks, Mucci, & Wood, 2004) | 716 | FOBT, FS, Colonoscopy | Cross | General | 36% | 9% | USA | 48% | No | SC | 1 | Patient |
| (Brenes & Paskett, 2000) | 202 | FS | Cross | General | 29% | 77% | USA | 76% | No | SC | 1 | Patient |
| (Choi et al., 2013) | 2004 | FS, Colonosocpy | Cross | General | 47% | 100% | Int. | 67% | No | NuA | 1 | Patient |
| (Codori et al., 2001) | 1074 | FS, Colonoscopy | Cross | High | NR | 3% | USA | 43% | No | VA | 1 | Patient |
| (Costanza et al., 2005) | 1253 | FOBT, FS, Colonoscopy | Cross | General | 26% | 6% | USA | 69% | No | VA, SC | 2 | Patient |
| (Cronan, Devoscomby, Villalta, & Gallagher, 2008) | 158 | FOBT, FS, Colonoscopy | Cross | General | NR | 68% | USA | NR | No | VA | 1 | Patient |
| (Fernandez et al., 2015) | 544 | FOBT, FS, Colonoscopy | Cross | General | 84% | NR | USA | 91% | No | VA, SC | 2 | Patient |
| (Flander et al., 2014) | 26 | Colonoscopy | Cross | High | NR | NR | Int. | 19% | No | NuA | 1 | Patient |
| (Frank, Swedmark, & Grubbs, 2004) | 49 | FOBT, FS, Colonoscopy | Cross | General | NR | 100% | USA | 35% | No | SC | 3 | Patient |
| (Friedman, Webb, Richards, & Plon, 1999) | 171 | FOBT | Cross | High | 6% | 0% | USA | 51% | No | VA | 1 | Chart |
| (Friedman, Everett, Peterson, Ogbonnaya, & Mendizabal, 2001) | 160 | FOBT | Pros. | General | 76% | 88% | USA | NR | No | VA | 1 | Chart |
| (Gimeno Garcia, Quintero, Nicolas Perez, Hernandez, & JimenezSosa, 2011) | 334 | FOBT, FS, Colonoscopy | Cross | High | 65% | NR | Int. | NR | No | SC | 1 | Patient |
| (Glenn et al., 2011) | 378 | FOBT, FS, Colonoscopy | Pros. | High | 37% | 70% | USA | 71% | No | VA | 1 | Patient |
| (Griffith, 2009) | 492 | FOBT, FS, Colonoscopy | Cross | General | 51% | 100% | USA | NR | Yes | VA | 1 | Patient |
| (J. L. Hay et al., 2003) | 280 | FOBT, FS, Colonoscopy | Cross | General | 19% | 24% | USA | 83% | Yes | SC | 1 | Patient |
| (Javadzade et al., 2012) | 98 | FOBT | Cross | General | NR | NR | Int. | NR | No | VA | 4 | Patient |
| (Kelly & Shank, 1992) | 180 | FS | Pros. | General | 82% | 3% | USA | 47% | Yes | VA | 1 | Chart |
| (S. E. Kim et al., 2008) | 1160 | Colonoscopy | Cross | General | 50% | 71% | USA | 42% | No | VA | 1 | Patient |
| (Koo et al., 2010) | 342 | FOBT, FS, Colonoscopy | Cross | General | NR | NR | Int. | 90% | No | VA, SC | 1 | Patient |
| (Lawsin, DuHamel, Weiss, Rakowski, & Jandorf, 2007) | 107 | FS, FOBT | Cross | General | 51% | 100% | USA | 54% | No | SC | 1 | Patient |
| (Lewis & Jensen, 1996) | 236 | FS | Cross | General | 35% | 10% | USA | 86% | No | SC | 1 | Patient |
| (Longacre, Cramer, & Gross, 2006) | 12132 | FS, Colonoscopy | Cross | General | 51% | 31% | USA | 90% | No | VA | 1 | Patient |
| (Lubetkin, Santana, Tso, & Jia, 2008) | 344 | FOBT, FS, Colonoscopy | Cross | General | 64% | 100% | USA | 71% | Yes | SC | 1 | Patient |
| (Mack et al., 2009) | 356 | FOBT, FS, Colonoscopy | Cross | High | 28% | NR | Int. | 48% | No | SC | 1 | Patient |
| (Mandelson et al., 2000) | 890 | FOBT | Cross | General | 36% | 11% | USA | 80% | Yes | SC | 1 | Patient |
| (McQueen et al., 2007) | 597 | FOBT, FS, Colonoscopy | Pros. | High | 41% | 100% | USA | 58% | No | VA | 3 | Chart |
| (Menon, Szalacha, Prabhughate, & Kue, 2014) | 275 | FOBT, FS, Colonoscopy | Cross | General | 65% | 87% | USA | 83% | No | VA | 1 | Patient |
| (Moser et al., 2007)† | 6035 | FOBT, FS, Colonoscopy | Cross | General | 50% | 15% | USA | 33% | No | VA | 2 | Patient |
| (Myers et al., 1994) | 501 | FOBT | Pros. | General | NR | 22% | USA | 78% | No | VA | 1 | Chart |
| (Palmer et al., 2007) | 481 | FOBT, FS, Colonoscopy | Cross | High | 18% | 27% | USA | 28% | No | VA, SC | 3 | Chart |
| (Palmer, Chhabra, & McKinney, 2011) | 504 | FOBT, FS, Colonoscopy | Cross | General | 51% | 100% | USA | 58% | No | VA, SC | 1 | Patient |
| (Paskett et al., 1997) * | 216 | FOBT, FS | Cross | General | 100% | 79% | USA | 75% | No | VA | 1 | Patient |
| (Santos, Lourenco, & Rossi, 2011) | 116 | Colonoscopy | Cross | High | 58% | 100% | Int. | 65% | No | NuA, SC, VA | 2 | Patient |
| (Shokar, Carlson, & Weller, 2008) | 560 | FOBT, FS, Colonoscopy | Cross | General | 52% | 64% | USA | 56% | No | SC | 1 | Patient |
| (Stark, Bertone-Johnson, Costanza, & Stoddard, 2006) | 1646 | FOBT, FS, Colonoscopy | Cross | General | 24% | 6% | USA | 67% | No | VA, SC | 2 | Patient |
| (W. Y. Sun, Basch, Wolf, & Li, 2004) | 203 | FOBT, FS | Cross | General | 78% | 100% | USA | 89% | No | SC | 3 | Patient |
| (Sutton et al., 2000) | 2632 | FS | Pros. | General | NR | 3% | Int. | 74% | No | SC | 1 | Chart |
| (Teng et al., 2006) † | 262 | FOBT, FS, Colonoscopy | Cross | General | 49% | 100% | USA | 89% | No | VA | 1 | Patient |
| (Tessaro, Mangone, Parkar, & Pawar, 2006) | 802 | FOBT, FS, Colonoscopy | Cross | General | 38% | 52% | USA | 67% | No | SC | 1 | Patient |
| (Wardle, Miles, & Atkin, 2005) | 5462 | FS | Pros. | General | NR | NR | Int. | 69% | No | SC | 1 | Chart |
| (Weinberg, Turner, Wang, Myers, & Miller, 2004) | 406 | FOBT, FS, Colonoscopy | Cross | General | 49% | 14% | USA | 52% | Yes | SC | 1 | Patient |
| (Zlot, Silvey, Newell, Coates, & Leman, 2011) | 1657 | FOBT, FS, Colonoscopy | Cross | High | 33% | NR | USA | 56% | No | VA | 1 | Patient |
Note: FOBT indicates Fecal Occult Bloot Test; FS, Flexible Sigmoidoscopy; Cross, Cross-Sectional; Pros., Prospective; NR, Not Reported; ≤ HS, High School degree or less; Int., International; Recruit., Recruitment; Sx, Symptoms; PRM, Perceived Risk Measure; VA, Verbal Absolute; SC, Social Comparative; NuA, Numerical Absolute; #RP Items, Number of Risk Perception Items.
*
Study reported 2 effect sizes.
†
Study reported 3 effect sizes.
±
Study met at least 3 of the 4 quality indicators (recruitment rate ≥ 60%; screening outcome variable excluded tests provided in the context of symptoms; screening outcome was based on medical chart abstraction; and use of multiple items to assess CRC risk perception)