Literature DB >> 18483353

Differences in baseline characteristics and outcomes at 1- and 2-year follow-up of cancer survivors accrued via self-referral versus cancer registry in the FRESH START Diet and exercise trial.

Denise Clutter Snyder1, Richard Sloane, David Lobach, Isaac M Lipkus, Bercedis Peterson, William Kraus, Wendy Demark-Wahnefried.   

Abstract

Participant accrual to research studies is a challenge; oftentimes, advertisements are used to supplement cases ascertained through clinic caseloads and cancer registries. It is unknown, however, if cases ascertained through these two sources differ. In this study, we compared self-referred (n = 209) and registry-ascertained (n = 334) participants enrolled in FRESH START, a randomized controlled trial promoting a healthy diet and increased exercise among breast and prostate cancer survivors. The two groups were compared on baseline characteristics, adherence, attrition, and outcomes by study arm. Compared with participants enrolled from registries, self-referrals were significantly younger (54.1 +/- 10.4 versus 58.7 +/- 10.7 years), more likely to have later-stage disease and to have received chemotherapy (40% versus 19%), and more likely to report "fighting spirit" coping styles (50% versus 30%), lower quality-of-life (88.2 +/- 15.1 versus 92.0 +/- 12.9), fewer comorbid conditions (1.87 +/- 1.60 versus 2.24 +/- 1.78), and lower consumption of five or more daily servings of fruits and vegetables (35% versus 45%; P values <0.05). Although no differences in behavior change were observed between self-referred and registry-ascertained cases assigned to the tailored intervention arm, this was not the case within the attention control arm. Among those who received the attention control intervention of standardized materials in the public domain, self-referred versus registry-ascertained participants showed significantly greater increases in exercise at 1-year follow-up and significantly greater increases in fruit and vegetable consumption at both 1- and 2-year follow-up (P values <0.05). Several differences exist between self-referred and registry-ascertained participants, including motivation to respond to standardized educational materials, which appears significantly greater in self-referred populations.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2008        PMID: 18483353      PMCID: PMC3842166          DOI: 10.1158/1055-9965.EPI-07-0705

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev        ISSN: 1055-9965            Impact factor:   4.254


  18 in total

1.  Generalizability of cancer clinical trial results: prognostic differences between participants and nonparticipants.

Authors:  Linda S Elting; Catherine Cooksley; B Nebiyou Bekele; Michael Frumovitz; Elenir B C Avritscher; Charlotte Sun; Diane C Bodurka
Journal:  Cancer       Date:  2006-06-01       Impact factor: 6.860

2.  Predictors of self-referral into a cancer genetics registry.

Authors:  Nora Beidler Henrikson; Julie N Harris; Deborah J Bowen
Journal:  Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev       Date:  2007-07       Impact factor: 4.254

3.  The dysregulation of human subjects research.

Authors:  Norman Fost; Robert J Levine
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  2007-11-14       Impact factor: 56.272

4.  Recruitment and baseline characteristics of participants in the Dietary Approaches to Stop Hypertension trial. DASH Collaborative Research Group.

Authors:  L J Appel; W M Vollmer; E Obarzanek; K M Aicher; P R Conlin; B M Kennedy; J B Charleston; P M Reams
Journal:  J Am Diet Assoc       Date:  1999-08

5.  Recruitment of black women with type 2 diabetes into a self-management intervention trial.

Authors:  Kelley Newlin; Gail D'Eramo Melkus; Vanessa Jefferson; Susan Langerman; Julie Womack; Deborah Chyun
Journal:  Ethn Dis       Date:  2006       Impact factor: 1.847

6.  Comparative validation of the Block, Willett, and National Cancer Institute food frequency questionnaires : the Eating at America's Table Study.

Authors:  A F Subar; F E Thompson; V Kipnis; D Midthune; P Hurwitz; S McNutt; A McIntosh; S Rosenfeld
Journal:  Am J Epidemiol       Date:  2001-12-15       Impact factor: 4.897

7.  Research recruitment through US central cancer registries: balancing privacy and scientific issues.

Authors:  Laura M Beskow; Robert S Sandler; Morris Weinberger
Journal:  Am J Public Health       Date:  2006-03-29       Impact factor: 9.308

Review 8.  Lifestyle interventions in cancer survivors: designing programs that meet the needs of this vulnerable and growing population.

Authors:  Valeda B Stull; Denise C Snyder; Wendy Demark-Wahnefried
Journal:  J Nutr       Date:  2007-01       Impact factor: 4.798

9.  Effect of different recruitment sources on the composition of a bipolar disorder case registry.

Authors:  S H Scholle; P B Peele; K J Kelleher; E Frank; L Jansen-McWilliams; D Kupfer
Journal:  Soc Psychiatry Psychiatr Epidemiol       Date:  2000-05       Impact factor: 4.328

10.  Main outcomes of the FRESH START trial: a sequentially tailored, diet and exercise mailed print intervention among breast and prostate cancer survivors.

Authors:  Wendy Demark-Wahnefried; Elizabeth C Clipp; Isaac M Lipkus; David Lobach; Denise Clutter Snyder; Richard Sloane; Bercedis Peterson; Jennifer M Macri; Cheryl L Rock; Colleen M McBride; William E Kraus
Journal:  J Clin Oncol       Date:  2007-07-01       Impact factor: 44.544

View more
  8 in total

1.  Cancer-specific concerns and physical activity among recently diagnosed breast and prostate cancer survivors.

Authors:  Allison Ottenbacher; Richard Sloane; Denise C Snyder; William Kraus; Lisa Sprod; Wendy Demark-Wahnefried
Journal:  Integr Cancer Ther       Date:  2012-08-09       Impact factor: 3.279

2.  Using registries to recruit subjects for clinical trials.

Authors:  Meng H Tan; Matthew Thomas; Mark P MacEachern
Journal:  Contemp Clin Trials       Date:  2014-12-26       Impact factor: 2.226

3.  Reach out to ENhancE Wellness in Older Cancer Survivors (RENEW): design, methods and recruitment challenges of a home-based exercise and diet intervention to improve physical function among long-term survivors of breast, prostate, and colorectal cancer.

Authors:  Denise Clutter Snyder; Miriam C Morey; Richard Sloane; Valeda Stull; Harvey Jay Cohen; Bercedis Peterson; Carl Pieper; Terryl J Hartman; Paige E Miller; Diane C Mitchell; Wendy Demark-Wahnefried
Journal:  Psychooncology       Date:  2009-04       Impact factor: 3.894

4.  Dietary lignan intakes in relation to survival among women with breast cancer: the Western New York Exposures and Breast Cancer (WEB) Study.

Authors:  Susan E McCann; Lilian U Thompson; Jing Nie; Joan Dorn; Maurizio Trevisan; Peter G Shields; Christine B Ambrosone; Stephen B Edge; Hsin-Fang Li; Christina Kasprzak; Jo L Freudenheim
Journal:  Breast Cancer Res Treat       Date:  2009-12-22       Impact factor: 4.872

Review 5.  Multidimensional rehabilitation programmes for adult cancer survivors.

Authors:  David A Scott; Moyra Mills; Amanda Black; Marie Cantwell; Anna Campbell; Chris R Cardwell; Sam Porter; Michael Donnelly
Journal:  Cochrane Database Syst Rev       Date:  2013-03-28

Review 6.  Efficacy of tailored-print interventions to promote physical activity: a systematic review of randomised trials.

Authors:  Camille E Short; Erica L James; Ronald C Plotnikoff; Afaf Girgis
Journal:  Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act       Date:  2011-10-17       Impact factor: 6.457

7.  Associations between self-referral and health behavior responses to genetic risk information.

Authors:  Kurt D Christensen; J Scott Roberts; Brian J Zikmund-Fisher; Sharon Lr Kardia; Colleen M McBride; Erin Linnenbringer; Robert C Green
Journal:  Genome Med       Date:  2015-01-31       Impact factor: 11.117

8.  Dietary interventions for adult cancer survivors.

Authors:  Sorrel Burden; Debra J Jones; Jana Sremanakova; Anne Marie Sowerbutts; Simon Lal; Mark Pilling; Chris Todd
Journal:  Cochrane Database Syst Rev       Date:  2019-11-22
  8 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.