Dataset Information

The effect of a supplementary ('Gist-based') information leaflet on colorectal cancer knowledge and screening intention: a randomized controlled trial.

ABSTRACT: Guided by Fuzzy Trace Theory, this study examined the impact of a 'Gist-based' leaflet on colorectal cancer screening knowledge and intentions; and tested the interaction with participants' numerical ability. Adults aged 45-59 years from four UK general practices were randomly assigned to receive standard information ('The Facts', n = 2,216) versus standard information plus 'The Gist' leaflet (Gist + Facts, n = 2,236). Questionnaires were returned by 964/4,452 individuals (22 %). 82 % of respondents reported having read the information, but those with poor numeracy were less likely (74 vs. 88 %, p < .001). The 'Gist + Facts' group were more likely to reach the criterion for adequate knowledge (95 vs. 91 %; p < .01), but this was not moderated by numeracy. Most respondents (98 %) intended to participate in screening, with no group differences and no interaction with numeracy. The improved levels of knowledge and self-reported reading suggest 'The Gist' leaflet may increase engagement with colorectal cancer screening, but ceiling effects reduced the likelihood that screening intentions would be affected.

SUBMITTER: Smith SG

PROVIDER: S-EPMC4353886 | biostudies-literature | 2015 Apr

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

The effect of a supplementary ('Gist-based') information leaflet on colorectal cancer knowledge and screening intention: a randomized controlled trial.

Smith Samuel G SG Raine Rosalind R Obichere Austin A Wolf Michael S MS Wardle Jane J von Wagner Christian C

Journal of behavioral medicine 20140925 2

Guided by Fuzzy Trace Theory, this study examined the impact of a 'Gist-based' leaflet on colorectal cancer screening knowledge and intentions; and tested the interaction with participants' numerical ability. Adults aged 45-59 years from four UK general practices were randomly assigned to receive standard information ('The Facts', n = 2,216) versus standard information plus 'The Gist' leaflet (Gist + Facts, n = 2,236). Questionnaires were returned by 964/4,452 individuals (22 %). 82 % of respond ...[more]

PMID: 25253443

Similar Datasets

Project description:BACKGROUND:Nonadherence to colorectal cancer (CRC) screening among Asian Americans is high but not well understood. This study examined correlates of screening intention among Filipino, Hmong, and Korean Americans who were nonadherent to CRC screening. METHODS:Using cross-sectional, preintervention survey data from 504 Asian Americans (115 Filipinos, 185 Hmong, and 204 Koreans) aged 50-75 years who were enrolled in a multisite cluster randomized controlled trial of lay health educator intervention, we analyzed correlates of self-reported CRC screening nonadherence, which was defined as not being up-to-date for fecal occult blood test, sigmoidoscopy, or colonoscopy. RESULTS:Only 26.8% of participants indicated intention to obtain screening within 6 months (Hmong: 12.4%; Korean: 30.8%; and Filipino: 42.6%; P < .001). Only one third of participants had undergone a prior screening, and a majority did not know that screening is a method of CRC prevention method (61.3%) or had any knowledge of CRC screening guidelines (53.4%). Multivariable analyses revealed that patient-provider ethnicity concordance, provider's recommendation of screening, participants' prior CRC screening, perceived severity and susceptibility of CRC, and knowledge of guidelines were positively associated with screening intention. Specifically, knowing one or more screening guidelines doubled the odds of screening intention (adjusted odds ratio, 2.38; 95% confidence interval, 1.32-4.28). Hmong were less likely to have screening intention than Filipinos, which was unexplained by socio-demographics, health care factors, perceived needs for CRC screening, or knowledge of screening guidelines. CONCLUSION:CRC screening intention among nonadherent Filipino, Hmong, and Korean Americans was low. Targeting knowledge of CRC screening guidelines may be effective strategies for increasing CRC screening intention among nonadherent Asian Americans. Cancer 2018;124:1560-7. © 2018 American Cancer Society.

Project description:BackgroundUptake of colorectal cancer screening is low in the English NHS Bowel Cancer Screening Programme (BCSP). Participation in screening is strongly associated with socioeconomic status. The aim of this study was to determine whether a supplementary leaflet providing the 'gist' of guaiac-based Faecal Occult Blood test (gFOBt) screening for colorectal cancer could reduce the socioeconomic status (SES) gradient in uptake in the English NHS BCSP.MethodsThe trial was integrated within routine BCSP operations in November 2012. Using a cluster randomised controlled design all adults aged 59-74 years who were being routinely invited to complete the gFOBt were randomised based on day of invitation. The Index of Multiple Deprivation was used to create SES quintiles. The control group received the standard information booklet ('SI'). The intervention group received the SI booklet and the Gist leaflet ('SI + Gist') which had been designed to help people with lower literacy engage with the invitation. Blinding of hubs was not possible and invited subjects were not made aware of a comparator condition. The primary outcome was the gradient in uptake across IMD quintiles.ResultsIn November 2012, 163,525 individuals were allocated to either the 'SI' intervention (n = 79,104) or the 'SI + Gist' group (n = 84,421). Overall uptake was similar between the intervention and control groups (SI: 57.3% and SI + Gist: 57.6%; OR = 1.02, 95% CI: 0.92-1.13, p = 0.77). Uptake was 42.0% (SI) vs. 43.0% (SI + Gist) in the most deprived quintile and 65.6% vs. 65.8% in the least deprived quintile (interaction p = 0.48). The SES gradient in uptake was similar between the study groups within age, gender, hub and screening round sub-groups.ConclusionsProviding supplementary simplified information in addition to the standard information booklet did not reduce the SES gradient in uptake in the NHS BCSP. The effectiveness of the Gist leaflet when used alone should be explored in future research.Trial registrationISRCTN74121020 , registered: 17/20/2012.

Project description:BackgroundThere is currently no existing evidence on the effects of personalised risk information on uptake of colonoscopy following first line screening for colorectal cancer. This study aimed to measure the impact of providing risk information based on faecal haemoglobin concentration to allow a fully informed choice around whether or not to undergo colonoscopy.MethodsTwo thousand seven hundred sixty-seven participants from the Scottish Bowel Screening Programme (SBoSP) database, who had not recently been invited for screening, were randomised to receive one of three types of hypothetical risk information materials: (1) numerical risk information (risk categories of one in 40, one in 1600 and one in 3500), (2) categorical risk information (highest, moderate and lowest risk), or (3) positive screening result letter (control group). The primary outcome was the impact of the risk materials on intention to undergo colonoscopy, to allow comparison with the current colonoscopy uptake of 77% for those with a positive screening result in the SBoSP. Secondary outcomes were knowledge, attitudes and emotional responses to the materials.ResultsFour hundred thirty-four (15.7%) agreed to participate with 100 from the numerical risk group (69.0%), 104 from the categorical risk group (72.2%) and 104 from the control group (71.7%) returning completed materials. Intention to undergo colonoscopy was highest in the highest risk groups for the numerical and categorical study arms (96.8% and 95.3%, respectively), but even in the lowest risk groups was > 50% (58.1% and 60.7%, respectively). Adequate knowledge of colorectal screening and the risks and benefits of colonoscopy was found in ≥ 98% of participants in all three arms. All participants reported that they found the information easy-to-understand. 19.1%, 24.0% and 29.6% of those in the numerical, categorical and control group, respectively, reported that they found the information distressing (p > 0.05).ConclusionsApplying the risk categories to existing SBoSP data shows that if all participants were offered an informed choice to have colonoscopy, over two thirds of participants would intend to have the test. Equating to an increase in the number of screening colonoscopies from approx. 14,000 to 400,000 per annum, this would place an unmanageable demand on colonoscopy services, with a very small proportion of cancers and pre-cancers detected. However, the response to the materials were very positive, suggesting that providing risk information to those in lowest and moderate risk groups along with advice that colonoscopy is not currently recommended may be an option. Future research would be required to examine actual uptake.Trial registrationDate applied 1 December 2017 ISRCTN number 14254582 .

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.

Dataset Information

The effect of a supplementary ('Gist-based') information leaflet on colorectal cancer knowledge and screening intention: a randomized controlled trial.

Publications

The effect of a supplementary ('Gist-based') information leaflet on colorectal cancer knowledge and screening intention: a randomized controlled trial.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets