Dataset Information

Low-literacy interventions to promote discussion of prostate cancer: a randomized controlled trial.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Professional organizations recommend that physicians discuss prostate cancer with patients to make individual screening decisions. However, few studies have tested strategies to encourage such discussions, particularly among high-risk populations. We examined the effects of two low-literacy interventions on the frequency of prostate cancer discussion and screening.

Design

Randomized, blinded, controlled trial with concealed allocation.

Setting/participants

Inner-city primary care clinic, serving a predominately African-American population. Participants were men aged 45-70 with no history of prostate cancer, presenting for a regular appointment.

Interventions

While waiting to see their physician, patients received a patient education handout on prostate cancer screening (PtEd), a handout simply encouraging patients to talk to their doctor about prostate cancer (Cue), or a control handout. The interventions did not advocate for or against screening.

Measures

Patient-reported discussion of prostate cancer with the physician and chart reviews determine prostate-specific antigen (PSA) test orders and performance of digital rectal examination (DRE). Adjusted odds ratios (aOR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) were computed. Data were collected in 2003, and analyses were completed in 2006.

Results

Most of the 250 subjects (90.4%) were African American and 78.8% read below the ninth grade level. Overall, 48.4% reported discussing prostate cancer during the appointment. Compared to the control group (37.3%), discussions were significantly more common in the Cue group (58.0%, aOR=2.39 [1.26-4.52]), as well as in the PtEd group (50.0%, aOR=1.92 [1.01-3.65]). When prostate cancer was discussed, patients in the intervention groups more commonly initiated the conversation (47.6% PtEd and 40.0% Cue, vs 9.7% control, p<0.01 for each comparison to control). Compared to the control group (2.4%), PSA test orders increased in the PtEd group (14.1%, aOR=7.62 [1.62-35.83]) and in the Cue group (12.3%, aOR=5.86 [1.24-27.81]). Documentation of DRE did not change significantly (4.7% PtEd, 6.2% Cue, and 6.0% control).

Conclusions

Two simple low-literacy interventions significantly increased discussion of prostate cancer and PSA test orders but not performance of DRE. Both interventions were effective in empowering low-literacy patients to initiate conversations about prostate cancer with their physician.

SUBMITTER: Kripalani S

PROVIDER: S-EPMC1986767 | biostudies-literature | 2007 Aug

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Low-literacy interventions to promote discussion of prostate cancer: a randomized controlled trial.

Kripalani Sunil S Sharma Jyoti J Justice Elizabeth E Justice Jeb J Spiker Cynthia C Laufman Larry E LE Price Megan M Weinberg Armin D AD Jacobson Terry A TA

American journal of preventive medicine 20070801 2

<h4>Background</h4>Professional organizations recommend that physicians discuss prostate cancer with patients to make individual screening decisions. However, few studies have tested strategies to encourage such discussions, particularly among high-risk populations. We examined the effects of two low-literacy interventions on the frequency of prostate cancer discussion and screening.<h4>Design</h4>Randomized, blinded, controlled trial with concealed allocation.<h4>Setting/participants</h4>Inner- ...[more]

PMID: 17673094

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundProvider recommendation is a predictor of colorectal cancer (CRC) screening.PurposeTo compare the effects of two clinic-based interventions on patient-provider discussions about CRC screening.DesignTwo-group RCT with data collected at baseline and 1 week post-intervention.Setting/participantsAfrican-American patients that were non-adherent to CRC screening recommendations (n=693) with a primary care visit between 2008 and 2010 in one of 11 urban primary care clinics.InterventionParticipants received either a computer-delivered tailored CRC screening intervention or a nontailored informational brochure about CRC screening immediately prior to their primary care visit.Main outcome measuresBetween-group differences in odds of having had a CRC screening discussion about a colon test, with and without adjusting for demographic, clinic, health literacy, health belief, and social support variables, were examined as predictors of a CRC screening discussion using logistic regression. Intervention effects on CRC screening test order by PCPs were examined using logistic regression. Analyses were conducted in 2011 and 2012.ResultsCompared to the brochure group, greater proportions of those in the computer-delivered tailored intervention group reported having had a discussion with their provider about CRC screening (63% vs 48%, OR=1.81, p<0.001). Predictors of a discussion about CRC screening included computer group participation, younger age, reason for visit, being unmarried, colonoscopy self-efficacy, and family member/friend recommendation (all p-values <0.05).ConclusionsThe computer-delivered tailored intervention was more effective than a nontailored brochure at stimulating patient-provider discussions about CRC screening. Those who received the computer-delivered intervention also were more likely to have a CRC screening test (fecal occult blood test or colonoscopy) ordered by their PCP.Trial registrationThis study is registered at www.clinicaltrials.gov NCT00672828.

Project description:BackgroundThe diabetes patients in China have low health literacy and low levels of physical activities which may result in the poor glycemic control and other clinical outcomes. This study is designed to evaluate the effectiveness of health literacy and exercise-focused interventions on clinical outcomes among Chinese patients with type 2 diabetes (T2DM).MethodsIn this cluster randomized controlled trial, 799 T2DM patients with the most recent A1c ≥ 7·5% (58 mmol/mol, or fasting glucose level ≥10 mmol/L) were recruited from 35 clinics in 8 communities in Shanghai, China, and randomized into one standard care (control) arm and three intervention arms receiving interventions focused on health literacy, exercise or both. A1c (primary outcome), blood pressure and lipids (secondary outcomes) were measured at baseline, 3-, 6-, 12-months of intervention period and 12-months after completion of the interventions. This trial is registered with the International Standard RCT Number Register, number ISRCTN76130594.FindingsThe three intervention groups had more reductions in A1c than the control group, with 0·90% reduction in the health literacy, 0·83% in the exercise and 0·54% in the comprehensive group at 12-months (p<0·001) and these improvements remained even after a 1-year follow-up period post intervention. The risk of suboptimal A1c (≥7·0% or 53 mmol/mol) was also significantly lower in three intervention groups than control group at each follow-up visit, with adjusted risk ratios (RR) ranging from 0.06 to 0.16. However, the control group has greater reductions in low-density lipoprotein (LDL) than the health literacy group from baseline to 12-months (β=0·55, p<0·0001) and from baseline to 24-months (β=0·62, p<0·0001). A higher risk of abnormal LDL was also observed for the health literacy group at 12-months [adjusted risk ratio (RR): 2·22, 95%CI: 1·11-4·44] and 24-months [adjusted risk ratio (RR): 2·37, 95%CI: 1·16-4·87] compared to the control group. No significant benefits in systolic blood pressure (SBP), diastolic blood pressure (DBP) and low-density lipoprotein (HDL) were observed from the interventions compared to the usual care.InterpretationThe health literacy and exercise interventions result in significant improvements in A1c. However, no significant benefits in blood pressure and lipids control were observed. These effective interventions may have potential of scaling up in China and other countries to help diabetes patients manage their blood glucose levels.FundingThis Study was supported by the China Medical Board (CMB) Open Competition Project (No.13-159) and the Social Science Fund of China National Ministry of Education (No.14YJAZH092).

Dataset Information

Low-literacy interventions to promote discussion of prostate cancer: a randomized controlled trial.

Background

Design

Setting/participants

Interventions

Measures

Results

Conclusions

Publications

Low-literacy interventions to promote discussion of prostate cancer: a randomized controlled trial.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure