Dataset Information

Promoting colonoscopy screening among low-income Latinos at average risk of colorectal cancer: A randomized clinical trial.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Screening colonoscopy (SC) for colorectal cancer (CRC) is underused by Latino individuals. The current randomized clinical trial examined the impact of 3 interventions: 1) patient navigation; 2) patient navigation plus standard Centers for Disease Control and Prevention print materials; and 3) patient navigation plus culturally targeted print materials for Latinos referred for SC. Demographic, personal and health history, and psychometric factors associated with SC also were examined.

Methods

A total of 344 urban Latino individuals aged 50 to 85 years with no personal and/or immediate family history of CRC diagnosed before age 60 years, no personal history of a gastrointestinal disorder, no colonoscopy within the past 5 years, with insurance coverage, and with a referral for SC were consented. Participants were randomized to patient navigation (20%), patient navigation plus standard Centers for Disease Control and Prevention print materials (40%), and patient navigation plus culturally targeted print materials (40%). The completion of SC was assessed at 12 months.

Results

The interventions had an overall SC rate of 82%. Counterintuitively, patients with an average income of <$10,000 were found to have higher SC rates (87%) than those with a greater income (75%).

Conclusions

The addition of standard or culturally targeted print materials did not appear to increase SC rates above those for patient navigation. Indeed, after controlling for other variables, culturally targeted print materials were found to be associated with lower SC rates among Puerto Rican individuals.

SUBMITTER: DuHamel KN

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6992525 | biostudies-literature | 2020 Feb

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Promoting colonoscopy screening among low-income Latinos at average risk of colorectal cancer: A randomized clinical trial.

DuHamel Katherine N KN Schofield Elizabeth A EA Villagra Cristina C Sriphanlop Pathu P Itzkowitz Steven H SH Cotter Gina G Cohen Noah N Erwin Deborah O DO Winkel Gary G Thompson Hayley S HS Zauber Ann G AG Jandorf Lina H LH

Cancer 20191119 4

<h4>Background</h4>Screening colonoscopy (SC) for colorectal cancer (CRC) is underused by Latino individuals. The current randomized clinical trial examined the impact of 3 interventions: 1) patient navigation; 2) patient navigation plus standard Centers for Disease Control and Prevention print materials; and 3) patient navigation plus culturally targeted print materials for Latinos referred for SC. Demographic, personal and health history, and psychometric factors associated with SC also were e ...[more]

PMID: 31742670

Similar Datasets

Project description:ImportanceAlthough some countries have implemented widespread colonoscopy screening, most European countries have not introduced it because of uncertainty regarding participation rates, procedure-related pain and discomfort, endoscopist performance, and effectiveness. To our knowledge, no randomized trials on colonoscopy screening currently exist.ObjectiveTo investigate participation rate, adenoma yield, performance, and adverse events of population-based colonoscopy screening in several European countries.Design, setting, and populationA population-based randomized clinical trial was conducted among 94 959 men and women aged 55 to 64 years of average risk for colon cancer in Poland, Norway, the Netherlands, and Sweden from June 8, 2009, to June 23, 2014.InterventionsColonoscopy screening or no screening.Main outcomes and measuresParticipation in colonoscopy screening, cancer and adenoma yield, and participant experience. Study outcomes were compared by country and endoscopist.ResultsOf 31 420 eligible participants randomized to the colonoscopy group, 12 574 (40.0%) underwent screening. Participation rates were 60.7% in Norway (5354 of 8816), 39.8% in Sweden (486 of 1222), 33.0% in Poland (6004 of 18 188), and 22.9% in the Netherlands (730 of 3194) (P < .001). The cecum intubation rate was 97.2% (12 217 of 12 574), with 9726 participants (77.4%) not receiving sedation. Of the 12 574 participants undergoing colonoscopy screening, we observed 1 perforation (0.01%), 2 postpolypectomy serosal burns (0.02%), and 18 cases of bleeding owing to polypectomy (0.14%). Sixty-two individuals (0.5%) were diagnosed with colorectal cancer and 3861 (30.7%) had adenomas, of which 1304 (10.4%) were high-risk adenomas. Detection rates were similar in the proximal and distal colon. Performance differed significantly between endoscopists; recommended benchmarks for cecal intubation (95%) and adenoma detection (25%) were not met by 6 (17.1%) and 10 of 35 endoscopists (28.6%), respectively. Moderate or severe abdominal pain after colonoscopy was reported by 601 of 3611 participants (16.7%) examined with standard air insufflation vs 214 of 5144 participants (4.2%) examined with carbon dioxide (CO2) insufflation (P < .001).Conclusions and relevanceColonoscopy screening entails high detection rates in the proximal and distal colon. Participation rates and endoscopist performance vary significantly. Postprocedure abdominal pain is common with standard air insufflation and can be significantly reduced by using CO2.Trial registrationclinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT00883792.

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:BackgroundClinical guidelines recommend either a clear-liquid diet or a low-fiber diet for colonoscopy preparation. Participants in a screening program are usually motivated healthy individuals in which a good tolerability is important to improve adherence to potential surveillance colonoscopies.ObjectiveOur aim was to assess whether or not a normocaloric low-fiber diet followed the day before a screening colonoscopy compromises the efficacy of bowel cleansing and may improve the tolerability of bowel preparation.DesignThis is a randomized, endoscopist-blinded, noninferiority clinical trial.SettingsThe study was conducted at a tertiary care center.PatientsA total of 276 consecutive participants of the Barcelona colorectal cancer screening program were included.InterventionParticipants were randomly assigned to a clear-liquid diet or a normocaloric low-fiber diet the day before the colonoscopy. Both groups received 4 L of polyethylene glycol in a split-dose regimen.Main outcome measuresPrimary outcome was the adequate bowel preparation rate measured with the Boston bowel preparation scale. Secondary outcomes included tolerability, fluid-intake perception, hunger, side effects, and acceptability.ResultsParticipants in both groups were similar in baseline characteristics. Adequate bowel preparation was achieved in 89.1% vs 95.7% in clear-liquid diet and low-fiber diet groups, showing not only noninferiority, but also superiority (p = 0.04). Low-fiber diet participants reported less fluid-intake perception (p = 0.04) and less hunger (p = 0.006), with no differences in bloating or nausea.LimitationsThe single-center design of the study could limit the external validity of the results. The present findings may not be comparable to other clinical settings.ConclusionA normocaloric low-fiber diet the day before a screening colonoscopy achieved better results than a clear-liquid diet in terms of adequate colon preparation. Moreover, it also improved the perception of hunger and excessive fluid intake. Registered at clinicaltrials.gov: NCT02401802. See Video Abstract at http://links.lww.com/DCR/A829.

Project description:BackgroundNo head-to-head randomized controlled trials have demonstrated the superiority of one colorectal screening modality over another in reducing colorectal cancer mortality. We conducted a pilot randomized controlled trial of fecal occult blood testing (FOBT), optical colonoscopy (OC), and virtual colonoscopy (VC), to inform the planning of a larger evaluative trial.MethodsEligible patients (aged 50 to 70) were recruited from five primary care practices in Hamilton, ON, Canada, between March 23, 2010 and August 11, 2010, and randomized 1:1:1 in a parallel design using an automated, centralized telephone service to either FOBT, OC, or VC. To reflect conventional practice, patients received no additional reminders to complete their allocated screening test beyond those received in usual practice. The primary outcome was completion of the assigned screening procedure. Results of the index test and any follow-up investigations were ascertained at 6 months. Participants, caregivers, and outcome assessors were not blinded to group assignment. The trial was stopped early due to lack of ongoing funding.ResultsA total of 198 participants were enrolled, of whom 67 were allocated to FOBT, 66 to OC, and 65 to VC. The allocated screening procedure was completed by 43 (64%) subjects allocated to FOBT (95% confidence interval [CI], 52-75%), 53 (80%) subjects allocated to OC (95% CI, 69-88%), and 50 (77%) subjects allocated to VC (95% CI, 65-85%); because the trial stopped early, we had insufficient statistical power to detect clinically relevant differences in completion rates. During 6 months follow-up, colorectal adenomas were detected in 0 (0%) subjects allocated to FOBT, 12 (18%) subjects allocated to OC, and 2 (3%) subjects allocated to VC. One subject in the OC arm had histological evidence of high-grade dysplasia. No subjects were diagnosed with colorectal cancer.ConclusionsIn this pilot randomized controlled trial of colorectal cancer screening in a primary care setting, 64-80% of subjects completed their allocated screening test. These findings may be of value to investigators planning clinical trials to evaluate the effectiveness of colorectal cancer screening.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov NCT00865527. https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT00865527.

Project description:New methods are needed to improve health behaviors, such as adherence to colorectal cancer (CRC) screening. Personalized genetic information to guide medical decisions is increasingly available. Whether such information motivates behavioral change is unknown.To determine whether individualized genetic and environmental risk assessment (GERA) of CRC susceptibility improves adherence to screening in average-risk persons.2-group, randomized, controlled trial. (ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT0087360).4 medical school-affiliated primary care practices.783 participants at average risk for CRC who were not adherent to screening at study entry.Participants were randomly assigned to usual care or GERA, which evaluated methylenetetrahydrofolate reductase polymorphisms and serum folate levels. On the basis of prespecified combinations of polymorphisms and serum folate levels, GERA recipients were told that they were at elevated or average risk for CRC.The primary outcome was CRC screening within 6 months of study entry.Overall screening rates for CRC did not statistically significant differ between the usual care (35.7%) and GERA (33.1%) groups. After adjustment for baseline participant factors, the odds ratio for screening completion for GERA versus usual care was 0.88 (95% CI, 0.64 to 1.22). Within the GERA group, screening rates did not significantly differ between average-risk (38.1%) and elevated-risk (26.9%) participants. Odds ratios for elevated- versus average-risk participants remained nonsignificant after adjustment for covariates (odds ratio, 0.75 [CI, 0.39 to 1.42]).Only 1 personalized genetic and environmental interaction and 1 health behavior (CRC screening) were assessed.In average-risk persons, CRC screening uptake was not positively associated with feedback from a single personalized GERA. Additional studies will be required to evaluate whether other approaches to providing GERA affect screening utilization differently. These findings raise concern about the effectiveness of moderately predictive assessment of genetic risk to promote favorable health care behavior.National Institutes of Health.

Project description:ImportanceMailed fecal immunochemical test (FIT) outreach is more effective than colonoscopy outreach for increasing 1-time colorectal cancer (CRC) screening, but long-term effectiveness may need repeat testing and timely follow-up for abnormal results.ObjectiveCompare the effectiveness of FIT outreach and colonoscopy outreach to increase completion of the CRC screening process (screening initiation and follow-up) within 3 years.Design, setting, and participantsPragmatic randomized clinical trial from March 2013 to July 2016 among 5999 participants aged 50 to 64 years who were receiving primary care in Parkland Health and Hospital System and were not up to date with CRC screenings.InterventionsRandom assignment to mailed FIT outreach (n = 2400), mailed colonoscopy outreach (n = 2400), or usual care with clinic-based screening (n = 1199). Outreach included processes to promote repeat annual testing for individuals in the FIT outreach group with normal results and completion of diagnostic and screening colonoscopy for those with an abnormal FIT result or assigned to colonoscopy outreach.Main outcomes and measuresPrimary outcome was screening process completion, defined as adherence to colonoscopy completion, annual testing for a normal FIT result, diagnostic colonoscopy for an abnormal FIT result, or treatment evaluation if CRC was detected. Secondary outcomes included detection of any adenoma or advanced neoplasia (including CRC) and screening-related harms (including bleeding or perforation).ResultsAll 5999 participants (median age, 56 years; women, 61.9%) were included in the intention-to-screen analyses. Screening process completion was 38.4% in the colonoscopy outreach group, 28.0% in the FIT outreach group, and 10.7% in the usual care group. Compared with the usual care group, between-group differences for completion were higher for both outreach groups (27.7% [95% CI, 25.1% to 30.4%] for the colonoscopy outreach group; 17.3% [95% CI, 14.8% to 19.8%] for FIT outreach group), and highest in the colonoscopy outreach group (10.4% [95% CI, 7.8% to 13.1%] for the colonoscopy outreach group vs FIT outreach group; P < .001 for all comparisons). Compared with usual care, the between-group differences in adenoma and advanced neoplasia detection rates were higher for both outreach groups (colonoscopy outreach group: 10.3% [95% CI, 9.5% to 12.1%] for adenoma and 3.1% [95% CI, 2.0% to 4.1%] for advanced neoplasia, P < .001 for both comparisons; FIT outreach group: 1.3% [95% CI, -0.1% to 2.8%] for adenoma and 0.7% [95% CI, -0.2% to 1.6%] for advanced neoplasia, P < .08 and P < .13, respectively), and highest in the colonoscopy outreach group (colonoscopy outreach group vs FIT outreach group: 9.0% [95% CI, 7.3% to 10.7%] for adenoma and 2.4% [95% CI, 1.3% to 3.3%] for advanced neoplasia, P < .001 for both comparisons). There were no screening-related harms in any groups.Conclusions and relevanceAmong persons aged 50 to 64 years receiving primary care at a safety-net institution, mailed outreach invitations offering FIT or colonoscopy compared with usual care increased the proportion completing CRC screening process within 3 years. The rate of screening process completion was higher with colonoscopy than FIT outreach.Trial registrationclinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT01710215.

Project description:BackgroundColorectal cancer (CRC) is the most frequent cancer in Europe. Randomized clinical trials demonstrated that screening with fecal occult blood test (FOBT) reduces mortality from CRC. Accordingly, the European Community currently recommends population-based screening with FOBT. Other screening tests, such as computed tomography colonography (CTC) and optical colonoscopy (OC), are highly accurate for examining the entire colon for adenomas and CRC. Acceptability represents a critical determinant of the impact of a screening program. We designed a randomized controlled trial to compare participation rate and diagnostic yield of FOBT, CTC with computer-aided diagnosis, and OC as primary tests for population-based screening.Methods/designA total of 14,000 subjects aged 55 to 64 years, living in the Florence district and never screened for CRC, will be randomized in three arms: group 1 (5,000 persons) invited to undergo CTC (divided into: subgroup 1A with reduced cathartic preparation and subgroup 1B with standard bowel preparation); group 2 (8,000 persons) invited to undergo a biannual FOBT for three rounds; and group 3 (1,000 persons) invited to undergo OC. Subjects of each group will be invited by mail to undergo the selected test. All subjects with a positive FOBT or CTC test (that is, mass or at least one polyp ≥ 6 mm) will be invited to undergo a second-level OC. Primary objectives of the study are to compare the participation rate to FOBT, CTC and OC; to compare the detection rate for cancer or advanced adenomas of CTC versus three rounds of biannual FOBT; to evaluate referral rate for OC induced by primary CTC versus three rounds of FOBT; and to estimate costs of the three screening strategies. A secondary objective of the study is to create a biological bank of blood and stool specimens from subjects undergoing CTC and OC.DiscussionThis study will provide information about participation/acceptability, diagnostic yield and costs of screening with CTC in comparison with the recommended test (FOBT) and OC.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT01651624.

Project description:The effectiveness of screening colonoscopy in average-risk adults is uncertain, particularly for right colon cancer.To examine the association between screening colonoscopy and risk for incident late-stage colorectal cancer (CRC).Nested case-control study.Four U.S. health plans.1039 average-risk adults enrolled for at least 5 years in one of the health plans. Case patients were aged 55 to 85 years on their diagnosis date (reference date) of stage IIB or higher (late-stage) CRC during 2006 to 2008. One or 2 control patients were selected for each case patient, matched on birth year, sex, health plan, and prior enrollment duration.Receipt of CRC screening 3 months to 10 years before the reference date, ascertained through medical record audits. Case patients and control patients were compared on receipt of screening colonoscopy or sigmoidoscopy by using conditional logistic regression that accounted for health history, socioeconomic status, and other screening exposures.In analyses restricted to 471 eligible case patients and their 509 matched control patients, 13 case patients (2.8%) and 46 control patients (9.0%) had undergone screening colonoscopy, which corresponded to an adjusted odds ratio (AOR) of 0.29 (95% CI, 0.15 to 0.58) for any late-stage CRC, 0.36 (CI, 0.16 to 0.80) for right colon cancer, and 0.26 (CI, 0.06 to 1.11; P = 0.069) for left colon/rectum cancer. Ninety-two case patients (19.5%) and 173 control patients (34.0%) had screening sigmoidoscopy, corresponding to an AOR of 0.50 (CI, 0.36 to 0.70) overall, 0.79 (CI, 0.51 to 1.23) for right colon late-stage cancer, and 0.26 (CI, 0.14 to 0.48) for left colon cancer.The small number of screening colonoscopies affected the precision of the estimates.Screening with colonoscopy in average-risk persons was associated with reduced risk for diagnosis of incident late-stage CRC, including right-sided colon cancer. For sigmoidoscopy, this association was seen for left CRC, but the association for right colon late-stage cancer was not statistically significant.

Dataset Information

Promoting colonoscopy screening among low-income Latinos at average risk of colorectal cancer: A randomized clinical trial.

Background

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Publications

Promoting colonoscopy screening among low-income Latinos at average risk of colorectal cancer: A randomized clinical trial.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets