BACKGROUND: The goal of the Carolinas Cancer Education and Screening (CARES) Project was to improve colorectal cancer (CRC) screening among low-income women in subsidized housing communities in 11 cities in North and South Carolina who were traditionally underserved by cancer control efforts. METHODS: Cross-sectional samples were randomly selected from housing authority lists at 5 timepoints in this nonrandomized community-based intervention study. Face-to-face interviews focused on CRC knowledge, beliefs, barriers to screening, and screening behaviors. The intervention components were based on a previous evidence-based program. RESULTS: A total of 2098 surveys were completed. Seventy-eight percent of the respondents were African American, 62% were 65+ years, and 4% were married. At baseline, the rate of CRC screening within guidelines was 49.3% and physician recommendation was the strongest predictor (odds ratio [OR] = 21.9) of being within guidelines. There was an increase in positive beliefs about CRC screening (P = .010) and in the intention to complete CRC screening in the next 12 months (P = .053) after the intervention. The odds of being within CRC screening guidelines for women living in a city that had received the intervention were not significantly different from women living in a city that had not received the intervention (P = .496). CONCLUSIONS: Although CRC screening rates were not significantly better after the intervention, there was a positive change in beliefs about screening and intention to be screened. The results suggest that the dissemination of an evidence-based behavioral intervention may require a longer duration to engage hard-to-reach populations and change behaviors.
BACKGROUND: The goal of the Carolinas Cancer Education and Screening (CARES) Project was to improve colorectal cancer (CRC) screening among low-income women in subsidized housing communities in 11 cities in North and South Carolina who were traditionally underserved by cancer control efforts. METHODS: Cross-sectional samples were randomly selected from housing authority lists at 5 timepoints in this nonrandomized community-based intervention study. Face-to-face interviews focused on CRC knowledge, beliefs, barriers to screening, and screening behaviors. The intervention components were based on a previous evidence-based program. RESULTS: A total of 2098 surveys were completed. Seventy-eight percent of the respondents were African American, 62% were 65+ years, and 4% were married. At baseline, the rate of CRC screening within guidelines was 49.3% and physician recommendation was the strongest predictor (odds ratio [OR] = 21.9) of being within guidelines. There was an increase in positive beliefs about CRC screening (P = .010) and in the intention to complete CRC screening in the next 12 months (P = .053) after the intervention. The odds of being within CRC screening guidelines for women living in a city that had received the intervention were not significantly different from women living in a city that had not received the intervention (P = .496). CONCLUSIONS: Although CRC screening rates were not significantly better after the intervention, there was a positive change in beliefs about screening and intention to be screened. The results suggest that the dissemination of an evidence-based behavioral intervention may require a longer duration to engage hard-to-reach populations and change behaviors.
Authors: A B Coffield; M V Maciosek; J M McGinnis; J R Harris; M B Caldwell; S M Teutsch; D Atkins; J H Richland; A Haddix Journal: Am J Prev Med Date: 2001-07 Impact factor: 5.043
Authors: Erin G Stone; Sally C Morton; Marlies E Hulscher; Margaret A Maglione; Elizabeth A Roth; Jeremy M Grimshaw; Brian S Mittman; Lisa V Rubenstein; Laurence Z Rubenstein; Paul G Shekelle Journal: Ann Intern Med Date: 2002-05-07 Impact factor: 25.391
Authors: M Baier; N Calonge; G Cutter; M McClatchey; S Schoentgen; S Hines; A Marcus; D Ahnen Journal: Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev Date: 2000-02 Impact factor: 4.254
Authors: Margaret Holmes-Rovner; Gilbert A Williams; Susan Hoppough; Lisa Quillan; Rishan Butler; C William Given Journal: Cancer Pract Date: 2002 Sep-Oct
Authors: Sidney Winawer; Robert Fletcher; Douglas Rex; John Bond; Randall Burt; Joseph Ferrucci; Theodore Ganiats; Theodore Levin; Steven Woolf; David Johnson; Lynne Kirk; Scott Litin; Clifford Simmang Journal: Gastroenterology Date: 2003-02 Impact factor: 22.682
Authors: Michael Pignone; Melissa Rich; Steven M Teutsch; Alfred O Berg; Kathleen N Lohr Journal: Ann Intern Med Date: 2002-07-16 Impact factor: 25.391
Authors: Erinn M Hade; David M Murray; Michael L Pennell; Dale Rhoda; Electra D Paskett; Victoria L Champion; Benjamin F Crabtree; Allen Dietrich; Mark B Dignan; Melissa Farmer; Joshua J Fenton; Susan Flocke; Robert A Hiatt; Shawna V Hudson; Michael Mitchell; Patrick Monahan; Salma Shariff-Marco; Stacey L Slone; Kurt Stange; Susan L Stewart; Pamela A Ohman Strickland Journal: J Natl Cancer Inst Monogr Date: 2010
Authors: Nancy L Keating; A James O'Malley; Joanne M Murabito; Kirsten P Smith; Nicholas A Christakis Journal: Cancer Date: 2011-01-24 Impact factor: 6.860
Authors: Mira L Katz; Sarah Heaner; Paul Reiter; Julie van Putten; Lee Murray; Leon McDougle; Donald J Cegala; Douglas Post; Prabu David; Michael Slater; Electra D Paskett Journal: Am J Health Educ Date: 2009-07
Authors: Talya Salz; Noel T Brewer; Robert S Sandler; Bryan J Weiner; Christopher F Martin; Morris Weinberger Journal: J Cancer Surviv Date: 2009-09-16 Impact factor: 4.442
Authors: David M Murray; Mira L Katz; Doug M Post; Michael L Pennell; Gregory S Young; Cathy M Tatum; Electra D Paskett Journal: Contemp Clin Trials Date: 2013-01-26 Impact factor: 2.226