↓ Skip to main content

Medical Mistrust and Colorectal Cancer Screening Among African Americans

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of Community Health, April 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (89th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (87th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
1 news outlet
blogs
1 blog
twitter
8 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
98 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
148 Mendeley
Title
Medical Mistrust and Colorectal Cancer Screening Among African Americans
Published in
Journal of Community Health, April 2017
DOI 10.1007/s10900-017-0339-2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Leslie B. Adams, Jennifer Richmond, Giselle Corbie-Smith, Wizdom Powell

Abstract

Despite well-documented benefits of colorectal cancer (CRC) screening, African Americans are less likely to be screened and have higher CRC incidence and mortality than Whites. Emerging evidence suggests medical mistrust may influence CRC screening disparities among African Americans. The goal of this systematic review was to summarize evidence investigating associations between medical mistrust and CRC screening among African Americans, and variations in these associations by gender, CRC screening type, and level of mistrust. MEDLINE, CINAHL, Web of Science, PsycINFO, Google Scholar, Cochrane Database, and EMBASE were searched for English-language articles published from January 2000 to November 2016. 27 articles were included for this review (15 quantitative, 11 qualitative and 1 mixed methods study). The majority of quantitative studies linked higher mistrust scores with lower rates of CRC screening among African Americans. Most studies examined mistrust at the physician level, but few quantitative studies analyzed mistrust at an organizational level (i.e. healthcare systems, insurance, etc.). Quantitative differences in mistrust and CRC screening by gender were mixed, but qualitative studies highlighted fear of experimentation and intrusiveness of screening methods as unique themes among African American men. Limitations include heterogeneity in mistrust and CRC measures, and possible publication bias. Future studies should address methodological challenges found in this review, such as limited use of validated and reliable mistrust measures, examination of CRC screening outcomes beyond beliefs and intent, and a more thorough analysis of gender roles in the cancer screening process.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 8 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 148 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 148 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 20 14%
Student > Master 17 11%
Researcher 15 10%
Student > Doctoral Student 13 9%
Other 8 5%
Other 21 14%
Unknown 54 36%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 33 22%
Social Sciences 17 11%
Psychology 11 7%
Nursing and Health Professions 8 5%
Business, Management and Accounting 3 2%
Other 12 8%
Unknown 64 43%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 20. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 03 February 2022.
All research outputs
#1,593,607
of 23,049,027 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Community Health
#98
of 1,229 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#32,934
of 309,866 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Community Health
#5
of 32 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,049,027 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 93rd percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,229 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 12.3. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 92% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 309,866 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 89% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 32 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 87% of its contemporaries.