Dataset Information

Improving Adherence to Colorectal Cancer Screening: A Randomized Intervention to Compare Screener vs. Survivor Narratives.

ABSTRACT: Interventions are needed to increase colorectal cancer screening (CRCS) uptake. Narratives may have advantages over didactic information. We tested different narratives for increasing CRCS intentions and behaviors, and examined their mechanisms of influence. We randomized 477 unscreened adults 50-75 years old to one of three groups: CRCS information only (1) or CRCS information plus a photo and text narrative of a CRC survivor (2) or CRC screener who did not have cancer (3). Photos were tailored on participants' sex, age group, and race/ethnicity. Participants completed online surveys before and after intervention exposure, and 1-, 6-, and 12-months follow-up. Thirty percent of participants completed CRCS. Narrative conditions (vs. information only) were negatively associated with intention, but also positively influenced intentions through greater emotional engagement. Survivor (vs. screener) narratives were positively associated with CRCS, and had mixed effects on intention - positively through emotional engagement and negatively through self-referencing engagement to self-efficacy. Survivor narratives elicited more negative affect, which had positive and negative influences on intention. Continued research using path models to understand the mechanisms of narrative effects will inform theory development and message design. Additional measurement evaluation is needed to adequately capture and then compare the effects of different components of narrative engagement.

SUBMITTER: McQueen A

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6459702 | biostudies-literature | 2019

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Improving Adherence to Colorectal Cancer Screening: A Randomized Intervention to Compare Screener vs. Survivor Narratives.

McQueen Amy A Caburnay Charlene C Kreuter Matthew M Sefko Julianne J

Journal of health communication 20190329 2

Interventions are needed to increase colorectal cancer screening (CRCS) uptake. Narratives may have advantages over didactic information. We tested different narratives for increasing CRCS intentions and behaviors, and examined their mechanisms of influence. We randomized 477 unscreened adults 50-75 years old to one of three groups: CRCS information only (1) or CRCS information plus a photo and text narrative of a CRC survivor (2) or CRC screener who did not have cancer (3). Photos were tailored ...[more]

PMID: 30924402

Similar Datasets

Project description:ImportanceRandomized clinical screening trials have shown that sigmoidoscopy screening reduces colorectal cancer (CRC) incidence and mortality. Colonoscopy has largely replaced sigmoidoscopy for CRC screening, but long-term results from randomized trials on colonoscopy screening are still lacking.ObjectiveTo estimate the additional screening benefit of colonoscopy compared with sigmoidoscopy.Design, setting, and participantsThis comparative effectiveness simulation study pooled data on 358 204 men and women randomly assigned to sigmoidoscopy screening or usual care in 4 randomized sigmoidoscopy screening trials conducted in Norway, Italy, the US, and UK with inclusion periods in the years 1993 to 2001. The primary analysis of the study was conducted from January 19 to December 30, 2021.InterventionInvitation to endoscopic screening.Main outcomes and measuresPrimary outcomes were CRC incidence and mortality. Using pooled 15-year follow-up data, colonoscopy screening effectiveness was estimated assuming that the efficacy of colonoscopy in the proximal colon was similar to that observed in the distal colon in the sigmoidoscopy screening trials. The simulation model was validated using data from Norwegian participants in a colonoscopy screening trial.ResultsThis analysis included 358 204 individuals (181 971 women [51%]) aged 55 to 64 years at inclusion with a median follow-up time ranging from 15 to 17 years. Compared with usual care, colonoscopy prevented an estimated 50 (95% CI, 42-58) CRC cases per 100 000 person-years, corresponding to 30% incidence reduction (rate ratio, 0.70 [95% CI, 0.66-0.75]), and prevented an estimated 15 (95% CI, 11-19) CRC deaths per 100 000 person-years, corresponding to 32% mortality reduction (rate ratio, 0.68 [95% CI, 0.61-0.76]). The additional benefit of colonoscopy screening compared with sigmoidoscopy was 12 (95% CI, 10-14) fewer CRC cases and 4 (95% CI, 3-5) fewer CRC deaths per 100 000 person-years, corresponding to percentage point reductions of 6.9 (95% CI, 6.0-7.9) for CRC incidence and 7.6 (95% CI, 5.7-9.6) for CRC mortality. The number needed to switch from sigmoidoscopy to colonoscopy screening was 560 (95% CI, 486-661) to prevent 1 CRC case and 1611 (95% CI, 1275-2188) to prevent 1 CRC death.Conclusions and relevanceThe findings of this comparative effectiveness study assessing long-term follow-up after CRC screening suggest that there was an additional preventive effect on CRC incidence and mortality associated with colonoscopy screening compared with sigmoidoscopy screening, but the additional preventive effect was less than what was achieved by introducing sigmoidoscopy screening where no screening existed. The results probably represent the upper limit of what may be achieved with colonoscopy screening compared with sigmoidoscopy screening.

Project description:BackgroundCancer survivors treated with any dose of radiation to the abdomen, pelvis, spine, or total body irradiation (TBI) are at increased risk for developing colorectal cancer (CRC) compared to the general population. Since earlier detection of CRC is strongly associated with improved survival, the Children's Oncology Group (COG) Long-Term Follow-Up Guidelines recommend that these high-risk cancer survivors begin CRC screening via a colonoscopy or a multitarget stool DNA test at the age of 30 years or 5 years following the radiation treatment (whichever occurs last). However, only 37% (95% CI 34.1-39.9%) of high-risk survivors adhere to CRC surveillance. The Activating cancer Survivors and their Primary care providers (PCP) to Increase colorectal cancer Screening (ASPIRES) study is designed to assess the efficacy of an intervention to increase the rate of CRC screening among high-risk cancer survivors through interactive, educational text-messages and resources provided to participants, and CRC screening resources provided to their PCPs.MethodsASPIRES is a three-arm, hybrid type II effectiveness and implementation study designed to simultaneously evaluate the efficacy of an intervention and assess the implementation process among participants in the Childhood Cancer Survivor Study (CCSS), a North American longitudinal cohort of childhood cancer survivors. The Control (C) arm participants receive electronic resources, participants in Treatment arm 1 receive electronic resources as well as interactive text messages, and participants in Treatment arm 2 receive electronic educational resources, interactive text messages, and their PCP's receive faxed materials. We describe our plan to collect quantitative (questionnaires, medical records, study logs, CCSS data) and qualitative (semi-structured interviews) intervention outcome data as well as quantitative (questionnaires) and qualitative (interviews) data on the implementation process.DiscussionThere is a critical need to increase the rate of CRC screening among high-risk cancer survivors. This hybrid effectiveness-implementation study will evaluate the effectiveness and implementation of an mHealth intervention consisting of interactive text-messages, electronic tools, and primary care provider resources. Findings from this research will advance CRC prevention efforts by enhancing understanding of the effectiveness of an mHealth intervention and highlighting factors that determine the successful implementation of this intervention within the high-risk cancer survivor population.Trial registrationThis protocol was registered at clinicaltrials.gov (identifier NCT05084833 ) on October 20, 2021.

Project description:ObjectivesWe have shown that, in a randomized trial comparing adherence to different colorectal cancer (CRC) screening strategies, participants assigned to either fecal occult blood testing (FOBT) or given a choice between FOBT and colonoscopy had significantly higher adherence than those assigned to colonoscopy during the first year. However, how adherence to screening changes over time is unknown.MethodsIn this trial, 997 participants were cluster randomized to one of the three screening strategies: (i) FOBT, (ii) colonoscopy, or (iii) a choice between FOBT and colonoscopy. Research assistants helped participants to complete testing only in the first year. Adherence to screening was defined as completion of three FOBT cards in each of 3 years after enrollment or completion of colonoscopy within the first year of enrollment. The primary outcome was adherence to assigned strategy over 3 years. Additional outcomes included identification of sociodemographic factors associated with adherence.ResultsParticipants assigned to annual FOBT completed screening at a significantly lower rate over 3 years (14%) than those assigned to colonoscopy (38%, P<0.001) or choice (42%, P<0.001); however, completion of any screening test fell precipitously, indicating the strong effect of patient navigation. In multivariable logistic regression analysis, being randomized to the choice or colonoscopy group, Chinese language, homosexuality, being married/partnered, and having a non-nurse practitioner primary care provider were independently associated with greater adherence to screening (P<0.01).ConclusionsIn a 3-year follow-up of a randomized trial comparing competing CRC screening strategies, participants offered a choice between FOBT and colonoscopy continued to have relatively high adherence, whereas adherence in the FOBT group fell significantly below that of the choice and colonoscopy groups. Patient navigation is crucial to achieving adherence to CRC screening, and FOBT is especially vulnerable because of the need for annual testing.

Dataset Information

Improving Adherence to Colorectal Cancer Screening: A Randomized Intervention to Compare Screener vs. Survivor Narratives.

Publications

Improving Adherence to Colorectal Cancer Screening: A Randomized Intervention to Compare Screener vs. Survivor Narratives.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets