BACKGROUND:Colorectal cancer (CRC) screening rates are increasing, but they are still low, particularly in ethnic minority groups. In many resource-poor settings, fecal occult blood test (FOBT) is the main screening option. INTERVENTION: Culturally tailored telephone counseling by community health advisors employed by a community-based organization, culturally tailored brochures, and customized FOBT kits. DESIGN: RCT. Participants were randomized to (1) basic intervention: culturally tailored brochure plus FOBT kit (n=765); (2) enhanced intervention: brochure, FOBT plus telephone counseling (n=768); or (3) usual care (n=256). SETTING/PARTICIPANTS: Latino and Vietnamese primary care patients at a large public hospital. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Self-reported receipt of FOBT or any CRC screening at 1-year follow-up. RESULTS:1358 individuals (718 Latinos and 640 Vietnamese) completed the follow-up survey. Self-reported FOBT screening rates increased by 7.8% in the control group, by 15.1% in the brochure group, and by 25.1% in the brochure/telephone counseling group (p<0.01 for differences between each intervention and usual care and for the difference between brochure/telephone counseling and brochure alone). For any CRC screening, rates increased by 4.1% in the usual care group, by 11.9% in the FOBT/brochure group, and by 21.4% in the brochure/telephone counseling group (p<0.01 for differences between each intervention and usual care and for the difference between the basic and the enhanced intervention). CONCLUSIONS: An intervention that included culturally tailored brochures and tailored telephone counseling increased CRC screening in Latinos and the Vietnamese. Brochure and telephone counseling together had the greatest impact. Future research should address replication and dissemination of this model for Latinos and Vietnamese in other communities, and adaptation of the model for other groups. Copyright 2010 American Journal of Preventive Medicine. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
RCT Entities:
BACKGROUND:Colorectal cancer (CRC) screening rates are increasing, but they are still low, particularly in ethnic minority groups. In many resource-poor settings, fecal occult blood test (FOBT) is the main screening option. INTERVENTION: Culturally tailored telephone counseling by community health advisors employed by a community-based organization, culturally tailored brochures, and customized FOBT kits. DESIGN: RCT. Participants were randomized to (1) basic intervention: culturally tailored brochure plus FOBT kit (n=765); (2) enhanced intervention: brochure, FOBT plus telephone counseling (n=768); or (3) usual care (n=256). SETTING/PARTICIPANTS: Latino and Vietnamese primary care patients at a large public hospital. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Self-reported receipt of FOBT or any CRC screening at 1-year follow-up. RESULTS: 1358 individuals (718 Latinos and 640 Vietnamese) completed the follow-up survey. Self-reported FOBT screening rates increased by 7.8% in the control group, by 15.1% in the brochure group, and by 25.1% in the brochure/telephone counseling group (p<0.01 for differences between each intervention and usual care and for the difference between brochure/telephone counseling and brochure alone). For any CRC screening, rates increased by 4.1% in the usual care group, by 11.9% in the FOBT/brochure group, and by 21.4% in the brochure/telephone counseling group (p<0.01 for differences between each intervention and usual care and for the difference between the basic and the enhanced intervention). CONCLUSIONS: An intervention that included culturally tailored brochures and tailored telephone counseling increased CRC screening in Latinos and the Vietnamese. Brochure and telephone counseling together had the greatest impact. Future research should address replication and dissemination of this model for Latinos and Vietnamese in other communities, and adaptation of the model for other groups. Copyright 2010 American Journal of Preventive Medicine. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
Authors: David A Etzioni; Ninez A Ponce; Susan H Babey; Benjamin A Spencer; E Richard Brown; Clifford Y Ko; Neetu Chawla; Nancy Breen; Carrie N Klabunde Journal: Cancer Date: 2004-12-01 Impact factor: 6.860
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: Samir Gupta; Daniel A Sussman; Chyke A Doubeni; Daniel S Anderson; Lukejohn Day; Amar R Deshpande; B Joseph Elmunzer; Adeyinka O Laiyemo; Jeanette Mendez; Ma Somsouk; James Allison; Taft Bhuket; Zhuo Geng; Beverly B Green; Steven H Itzkowitz; Maria Elena Martinez Journal: J Natl Cancer Inst Date: 2014-03-28 Impact factor: 13.506
Authors: Shiela M Strauss; Ashley E Jensen; Katelyn Bennett; Nicole Skursky; Scott E Sherman; Mark D Schwartz Journal: Transl Behav Med Date: 2015-03 Impact factor: 3.046
Authors: Bang H Nguyen; Susan L Stewart; Tung T Nguyen; Ngoc Bui-Tong; Stephen J McPhee Journal: Am J Public Health Date: 2015-08-13 Impact factor: 9.308
Authors: Anita Y Kinney; Rachel Howell; Rachel Ruckman; Jean A McDougall; Tawny W Boyce; Belinda Vicuña; Ji-Hyun Lee; Dolores D Guest; Randi Rycroft; Patricia A Valverde; Kristina M Gallegos; Angela Meisner; Charles L Wiggins; Antoinette Stroup; Lisa E Paddock; Scott T Walters Journal: Contemp Clin Trials Date: 2018-09-18 Impact factor: 2.226
Authors: Cheryl L Holt; Mark S Litaker; Isabel C Scarinci; Katrina J Debnam; Chastity McDavid; Sandre F McNeal; Mohamad A Eloubeidi; Martha Crowther; John Bolland; Michelle Y Martin Journal: Health Educ Behav Date: 2012-10-02
Authors: Caitlin C Murphy; Sally W Vernon; Nicole M Haddock; Melissa L Anderson; Jessica Chubak; Beverly B Green Journal: Prev Med Date: 2014-06-15 Impact factor: 4.018
Authors: Elisa K Tong; Tung T Nguyen; Penny Lo; Susan L Stewart; Ginny L Gildengorin; Janice Y Tsoh; Angela M Jo; Marjorie L Kagawa-Singer; Angela U Sy; Charlene Cuaresma; Hy T Lam; Ching Wong; Mi T Tran; Moon S Chen Journal: Cancer Date: 2016-08-26 Impact factor: 6.860