Reviewer’s report
Title: 
Sociodemographic correlates of colorectal cancer screening completion
among women adherent to mammography screening guidelines by place of birth
Version: 
0 
Date: 
03 Feb 2022
Reviewer's report:
This is an interesting and well-written study that seeks to understand predictors
of CRC screening participation among women who report taking part in breast
screening using a national US survey. 
There is an emerging literature on this topic in Europe which is not referred to in
the paper. Although the healthcare context is different in the US compared with
European countries with national screening programmes, I do think it may be
worth referring to some of the papers below and drawing comparisons (see
references below).
The Methods are clearly described. I had a couple of analysis questions: how
were variables selected for inclusion in the multivariable models? (a priori or
based on bivariate associations?). Was a power calculation carried out? I
appreciate this is a secondary analysis so the sample size was determined by
available data in NHIS, but it would be useful to know whether the analyses
were adequately powered to detect meaningful differences.
Minor point: are the odds ratios cited in the text of the Results adjusted? (should
they be AOR rather than OR, as per the abstract?)
The first line of the Discussion refers to 'screening beliefs'. My understanding
was that the only beliefs measured were breast and CRC risk perceptions. Is this
correct? If so, perhaps this could be made clear here (i.e. they are cancer beliefs
rather than screening beliefs). 
As per my first comment, it might be useful to refer to some additional studies
comparing barriers across screening programmes in the Discussion. Many of the
beliefs about CRC screening identified in a qualitative study in Scotland (Kotzur
et al) might be relevant in the US context but were not measured in the survey
e.g. beliefs about CRC symptoms being easier to detect without the need for
screening, and aversion to CRC treatment which was seen as more severe than
breast cancer treatment.
Kotzur et al (2020) https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31879320/
McCowen et al (2019) https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31481732/
Rebolj et al (2020) https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31525303/
Lo et al (2013) https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/23761420/
Publons Reviewer Recognition
. Springer Nature can send verification of this
review directly to Publons (a subsidiary of Clarivate Analytics). If you would
like to take advantage of this service, please click on the “Yes” option below.
Your name, email address, title of the reviewed manuscript, name of the journal,
and date of your review submission (the “Review Data”) will then be transmitted
to Publons after the final decision on the manuscript has been made. If you have
already registered at Publons, they will notify you of the receipt of this review
and update your profile 
as per your settings and their policy. If you are not
registered with Publons, you will receive an email from them asking you to
register in order for them to be able to recognize your review on your new
profile page. Publons may use the Review Data to generate derivative metadata
for the benefit of Publons and you as a reviewer, carefully considering the
sensitivity of such information. For example, Publons may verify your record as
a reviewer by updating your profile published on its webservice if you have
registered for such service or help editors to identify candidate reviewers. Please
find the details of processing in Publons’ privacy policy
https://publons.com/about/terms
Yes
Declaration of competing interests
Please complete a declaration of competing
interests, considering the following questions:
1
. 
Have you in the past five years received reimbursements, fees, funding, or
salary from an organisation that may in any way gain or lose financially
from the publication of this manuscript, either now or in the future?
2
. 
Do you hold any stocks or shares in an organisation that may in any way
gain or lose financially from the publication of this manuscript, either now
or in the future?
3
. 
Do you hold or are you currently applying for any patents relating to the
content of the manuscript?
4
. 
Have you received reimbursements, fees, funding, or salary from an
organization that holds or has applied for patents relating to the content of
the manuscript?
5
. 
Do you have any other financial competing interests?
6
. 
Do you have any non-financial competing interests in relation to this
paper?
If you can answer no to all of the above, write 'I declare that I have no competing
interests' below. If your reply is yes to any, please give details below.
I declare I have no competing interests
Reviewer Publication Consent.
 I agree for my report to be made available
under an Open Access Creative Commons CC-BY License (
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0
) if this manuscript is accepted for
publication. Any comments that I do not wish to be included in the published
report have been included as confidential comments to the editor, which will not
be published.
If you are not happy for us to publish this report, please contact the
editorial office before completing the review.
If you wish, you can include your
name in your published report. Please note you must decide whether to include
your name at the start of the process and confirm this decision whenever
prompted. If you change your decision later, we will not be able to publish your
name.
I agree to the terms of the CC-BY 4.0 license; please 
do not
 publish my name
with my report. (default)
Is the study design appropriate to answer the research question (including the use
of appropriate controls), and are the conclusions supported by the evidence
presented?
Yes
Are the methods sufficiently described to allow the study to be repeated?
Yes
Is the use of statistics and treatment of uncertainties appropriate?
Yes
Is the presentation of the work clear?
Yes
Are the images in this manuscript (including electrophoretic gels and blots) free
from apparent manipulation?
Yes