BACKGROUND: Hispanics in the United States are less likely than other groups to receive screening services for colorectal cancer. METHODS: The authors conducted a clinic-based individual randomized trial that enrolled Hispanic patients ages 50 to 79 years who had been seen in the Seattle-based community clinic in the past 5 years. A total of 501 patients met the eligibility criteria and were randomized to 1 of 3 conditions: 1) usual care; 2) mailed fecal occult blood test (FOBT) card and instructions on how to complete the test (mailed FOBT only); and 3) mailed FOBT card and instructions on how to complete the test, telephone reminders, and home visits (mailed FOBT and outreach). The authors assessed postintervention differences in rates of FOBT screening in intervention and usual care groups using computerized medical records reviewed from June 2007 to March 2008. RESULTS: Data analysis occurred between November 2008 and September 2009. Nine-month postintervention screening rates were 26% among patients who received the mailed packet only intervention (P < .001 compared with usual care) and 31% in the group that received the mailed packet and outreach intervention (P < .001 compared with usual care). This compared with 2% in the group that received usual care. Screening rates in the mailed FOBT only group and in the mailed FOBT and outreach group were not significantly different (P = .28). CONCLUSIONS:Culturally appropriate clinic-based interventions may increase colorectal cancer screening among underserved Hispanics.
RCT Entities:
BACKGROUND: Hispanics in the United States are less likely than other groups to receive screening services for colorectal cancer. METHODS: The authors conducted a clinic-based individual randomized trial that enrolled Hispanic patients ages 50 to 79 years who had been seen in the Seattle-based community clinic in the past 5 years. A total of 501 patients met the eligibility criteria and were randomized to 1 of 3 conditions: 1) usual care; 2) mailed fecal occult blood test (FOBT) card and instructions on how to complete the test (mailed FOBT only); and 3) mailed FOBT card and instructions on how to complete the test, telephone reminders, and home visits (mailed FOBT and outreach). The authors assessed postintervention differences in rates of FOBT screening in intervention and usual care groups using computerized medical records reviewed from June 2007 to March 2008. RESULTS: Data analysis occurred between November 2008 and September 2009. Nine-month postintervention screening rates were 26% among patients who received the mailed packet only intervention (P < .001 compared with usual care) and 31% in the group that received the mailed packet and outreach intervention (P < .001 compared with usual care). This compared with 2% in the group that received usual care. Screening rates in the mailed FOBT only group and in the mailed FOBT and outreach group were not significantly different (P = .28). CONCLUSIONS: Culturally appropriate clinic-based interventions may increase colorectal cancer screening among underserved Hispanics.
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: Gloria D Coronado; Jennifer L Schneider; Jennifer J Sanchez; Amanda F Petrik; Beverly Green Journal: Transl Behav Med Date: 2015-03 Impact factor: 3.046
Authors: Jamie H Thompson; Melinda M Davis; Michael C Leo; Jennifer L Schneider; David H Smith; Amanda F Petrik; Melissa Castillo; Brittany Younger; Gloria D Coronado Journal: Contemp Clin Trials Date: 2018-02-09 Impact factor: 2.226
Authors: Gloria D Coronado; Amanda F Petrik; Mark Spofford; Jocelyn Talbot; Huyen Hoai Do; Victoria M Taylor Journal: Health Educ Behav Date: 2014-06-20
Authors: Sheila F Castañeda; Balambal Bharti; Marielena Rojas; Silvia Mercado; Adriana M Bearse; Jasmine Camacho; Manuel Song Lopez; Fatima Muñoz; Shawne O'Connell; Lin Liu; Gregory A Talavera; Samir Gupta Journal: Am J Public Health Date: 2020-02-20 Impact factor: 9.308
Authors: Shira N Goldman; David T Liss; Tiffany Brown; Ji Young Lee; David R Buchanan; Kate Balsley; Ana Cesan; Jordan Weil; Bridget H Garrity; David W Baker Journal: J Gen Intern Med Date: 2015-03-27 Impact factor: 5.128
Authors: Gloria D Coronado; William M Vollmer; Amanda Petrik; Stephen H Taplin; Timothy E Burdick; Richard T Meenan; Beverly B Green Journal: Contemp Clin Trials Date: 2014-06-14 Impact factor: 2.226
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