TY - JOUR
T1 - Promoting colorectal cancer screening discussion
T2 - A randomized controlled trial
AU - Christy, Shannon M.
AU - Perkins, Susan M.
AU - Tong, Yan
AU - Krier, Connie
AU - Champion, Victoria L.
AU - Skinner, Celette Sugg
AU - Springston, Jeffrey K.
AU - Imperiale, Thomas F.
AU - Rawl, Susan M.
N1 - Funding Information:
SMC is a predoctoral fellow funded by the Training in Research for Behavioral Oncology and Cancer Control Program—R25 ( R25 CA117865-06 ; PI: Champion) and a doctoral student in the Department of Psychology in the Purdue School of Science at Indiana University–Purdue University Indianapolis.
Funding Information:
The intervention trial was funded by a National Cancer Institute grant awarded to SMR ( R01 CA115983 ; PI: Rawl).
PY - 2013/4
Y1 - 2013/4
N2 - Background: Provider recommendation is a predictor of colorectal cancer (CRC) screening. Purpose: To compare the effects of two clinic-based interventions on patient-provider discussions about CRC screening. Design: Two-group RCT with data collected at baseline and 1 week post-intervention. Setting/participants: African-American patients that were non-adherent toCRCscreening recommendations (n693) with a primary care visit between 2008 and 2010 in one of 11 urban primary care clinics. Intervention: Participants received either a computer-delivered tailoredCRCscreening intervention or a nontailored informational brochure aboutCRCscreening immediately prior to their primary care visit. Main outcome measures: Between-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 onCRCscreening test order by PCPs were examined using logistic regression. Analyses were conducted in 2011 and 2012. Results: Compared 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%, OR1.81, 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). Conclusions: The 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 weremorelikely to have aCRCscreening test (fecal occult blood test or colonoscopy) ordered by their PCP.
AB - Background: Provider recommendation is a predictor of colorectal cancer (CRC) screening. Purpose: To compare the effects of two clinic-based interventions on patient-provider discussions about CRC screening. Design: Two-group RCT with data collected at baseline and 1 week post-intervention. Setting/participants: African-American patients that were non-adherent toCRCscreening recommendations (n693) with a primary care visit between 2008 and 2010 in one of 11 urban primary care clinics. Intervention: Participants received either a computer-delivered tailoredCRCscreening intervention or a nontailored informational brochure aboutCRCscreening immediately prior to their primary care visit. Main outcome measures: Between-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 onCRCscreening test order by PCPs were examined using logistic regression. Analyses were conducted in 2011 and 2012. Results: Compared 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%, OR1.81, 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). Conclusions: The 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 weremorelikely to have aCRCscreening test (fecal occult blood test or colonoscopy) ordered by their PCP.
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84884196182&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84884196182&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1016/j.amepre.2012.11.032
DO - 10.1016/j.amepre.2012.11.032
M3 - Article
C2 - 23498096
AN - SCOPUS:84884196182
SN - 0749-3797
VL - 44
SP - 325
EP - 329
JO - American Journal of Preventive Medicine
JF - American Journal of Preventive Medicine
IS - 4
ER -