Welcome to The Community Guide! Let us know what you think of the website by completing this quick survey.

Cancer Screening: Small Media Targeting Clients – Colorectal Cancer by Flexible Sigmoidoscopy, Colonoscopy, or Double Contrast Barium Enema


What the CPSTF Found

About The Systematic Review

The Task Force finding is based on evidence from a systematic review of 0 studies (search period 1966 - 2004). The review was conducted on behalf of the Task Force by a team of specialists in systematic review methods, and in research, practice, and policy related to cancer prevention and control.


There is no information for this section.

Summary of Results

No studies qualified for the review.


Summary of Economic Evidence

An economic review of this intervention was not conducted because the Task Force did not have enough information to determine if the intervention works.


Applicability of this intervention across different settings and populations was not assessed because the Task Force did not have enough information to determine if the intervention works.

Evidence Gaps

Each Community Preventive Services Task Force (Task Force) review identifies critical evidence gaps—areas where information is lacking. Evidence gaps can exist whether or not a recommendation is made. In cases when the Task Force finds insufficient evidence to determine whether an intervention strategy works, evidence gaps encourage researchers and program evaluators to conduct more effectiveness studies. When the Task Force recommends an intervention, evidence gaps highlight missing information that would help users determine if the intervention could meet their particular needs. For example, evidence may be needed to determine where the intervention will work, with which populations, how much it will cost to implement, whether it will provide adequate return on investment, or how users should structure or deliver the intervention to ensure effectiveness. Finally, evidence may be missing for outcomes different from those on which the Task Force recommendation is based.

Identified Evidence Gaps

The following outlines evidence gaps for these reviews of interventions to increase breast, cervical, and colorectal cancer screening: Client Reminders (archived); Small Media Targeting Clients; One-on-One Education for Clients (archived).

Research Questions for Future Studies – Small Media

  • Does effectiveness of small media differ by choice of medium (e.g., letter, video, brochure, or Internet-delivered application), information source (e.g., personal physician, educator), or intensity or frequency of delivery?
  • What is the relative cost effectiveness of tailored versus untailored messages?

Research Questions for Future Studies – Overall

  • How does the effectiveness of interventions to increase community demand for screening vary with the health literacy of a target population or subpopulation?
  • How can newer methods of communication—including automated telephone calls and Internet-delivered applications—be used to improve delivery, acceptance, and effectiveness of these interventions?
  • How effective are these interventions in increasing screening by colorectal endoscopy or by double contrast barium enema (for which no qualifying studies were identified)?
  • What is required to disseminate and implement effective interventions in community settings across the United States?
  • How can or should these approaches be applied to assure that screening, once initiated, is maintained at recommended intervals?
  • With respect to interventions that may be tailored to individuals, how are effective tailoring programs adapted, disseminated, and implemented in community-based settings across the United States?



Study Characteristics

No studies qualified for the review.