BACKGROUND: Previous analysis of a randomized community-based trial of a multi-component intervention to increase colorectal cancer (CRC) screening among Filipino Americans (n = 548) found significantly higher screening rates in the two intervention groups compared to the control group, when using intent-to-treat analysis and self-reported screening as the outcome. This report describes more nuanced findings obtained from alternative approaches to assessing intervention effectiveness to inform future intervention implementation. METHODS: The effect of the intervention on CRC screening receipt during follow-up was estimated using methods that adjusted for biases due to missing data and self-report and for different combinations of intervention components. Adjustment for self-report used data from a validation substudy. Effectiveness within demographic subgroups was also examined. RESULTS: Analyses accounting for self-report bias and missing data supported the effectiveness of the intervention. The intervention was also broadly effective across the demographic characteristics of the sample. Estimates of the intervention effect were highest among participants whose providers received a letter as part of the intervention. CONCLUSIONS: The findings increase confidence that the intervention could be broadly effective at increasing CRC screening in this population. Subgroup analyses and attempts to deconstruct multi-component interventions can provide important information for future intervention development, implementation, and dissemination.
RCT Entities:
BACKGROUND: Previous analysis of a randomized community-based trial of a multi-component intervention to increase colorectal cancer (CRC) screening among Filipino Americans (n = 548) found significantly higher screening rates in the two intervention groups compared to the control group, when using intent-to-treat analysis and self-reported screening as the outcome. This report describes more nuanced findings obtained from alternative approaches to assessing intervention effectiveness to inform future intervention implementation. METHODS: The effect of the intervention on CRC screening receipt during follow-up was estimated using methods that adjusted for biases due to missing data and self-report and for different combinations of intervention components. Adjustment for self-report used data from a validation substudy. Effectiveness within demographic subgroups was also examined. RESULTS: Analyses accounting for self-report bias and missing data supported the effectiveness of the intervention. The intervention was also broadly effective across the demographic characteristics of the sample. Estimates of the intervention effect were highest among participants whose providers received a letter as part of the intervention. CONCLUSIONS: The findings increase confidence that the intervention could be broadly effective at increasing CRC screening in this population. Subgroup analyses and attempts to deconstruct multi-component interventions can provide important information for future intervention development, implementation, and dissemination.
Authors: Judith M E Walsh; Celia P Kaplan; Bang Nguyen; Ginny Gildengorin; Stephen J McPhee; Eliseo J Pérez-Stable Journal: J Gen Intern Med Date: 2004-02 Impact factor: 5.128
Authors: Alfred C Marcus; Mondi Mason; Pam Wolfe; Barbara K Rimer; Isaac Lipkus; Victor Strecher; Richard Warneke; Marion E Morra; Amy Reasinger Allen; Sharon W Davis; Amy Gaier; Carlan Graves; Karen Julesberg; Lynne Nguyen; Rosemarie Perocchia; Jo Beth Speyer; Doug Wagner; Chris Thomsen; Mary Anne Bright Journal: J Health Commun Date: 2005
Authors: Robin L Kruse; Brian S Alper; Carin Reust; James J Stevermer; Scott Shannon; Randy H Williams Journal: J Fam Pract Date: 2002-11 Impact factor: 0.493
Authors: Isaac M Lipkus; Celette Sugg Skinner; John Dement; Lisa Pompeii; Barry Moser; Gregory P Samsa; David Ransohoff Journal: Prev Med Date: 2005-05 Impact factor: 4.018
Authors: Annette E Maxwell; Angela M Jo; Catherine M Crespi; Madhuri Sudan; Roshan Bastani Journal: Cancer Causes Control Date: 2010-07-31 Impact factor: 2.506
Authors: Laura C Seeff; Marion R Nadel; Carrie N Klabunde; Trevor Thompson; Jean A Shapiro; Sally W Vernon; Ralph J Coates Journal: Cancer Date: 2004-05-15 Impact factor: 6.860
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