BACKGROUND: Despite evidence that several colorectal cancer (CRC) screening strategies can reduce CRC mortality, screening rates remain low. This study aimed to determine whether the approach by which screening is recommended influences adherence. METHODS: We used a cluster randomization design with clinic time block as the unit of randomization. Persons at average risk for development of CRC in a racially/ethnically diverse urban setting were randomized to receive recommendation for screening by fecal occult blood testing (FOBT), colonoscopy, or their choice of FOBT or colonoscopy. The primary outcome was completion of CRC screening within 12 months after enrollment, defined as performance of colonoscopy, or 3 FOBT cards plus colonoscopy for any positive FOBT result. Secondary analyses evaluated sociodemographic factors associated with completion of screening. RESULTS:A total of 997 participants were enrolled; 58% completed the CRC screening strategy they were assigned or chose. However, participants who were recommended colonoscopy completed screening at a significantly lower rate (38%) than participants who were recommended FOBT (67%) (P < .001) or given a choice between FOBT or colonoscopy (69%) (P < .001). Latinos and Asians (primarily Chinese) completed screening more often than African Americans. Moreover, nonwhite participants adhered more often to FOBT, while white participants adhered more often to colonoscopy. CONCLUSIONS: The common practice of universally recommending colonoscopy may reduce adherence to CRC screening, especially among racial/ethnic minorities. Significant variation in overall and strategy-specific adherence exists between racial/ethnic groups; however, this may be a proxy for health beliefs and/or language. These results suggest that patient preferences should be considered when making CRC screening recommendations. Trial Registration clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT00705731.
RCT Entities:
BACKGROUND: Despite evidence that several colorectal cancer (CRC) screening strategies can reduce CRC mortality, screening rates remain low. This study aimed to determine whether the approach by which screening is recommended influences adherence. METHODS: We used a cluster randomization design with clinic time block as the unit of randomization. Persons at average risk for development of CRC in a racially/ethnically diverse urban setting were randomized to receive recommendation for screening by fecal occult blood testing (FOBT), colonoscopy, or their choice of FOBT or colonoscopy. The primary outcome was completion of CRC screening within 12 months after enrollment, defined as performance of colonoscopy, or 3 FOBT cards plus colonoscopy for any positive FOBT result. Secondary analyses evaluated sociodemographic factors associated with completion of screening. RESULTS: A total of 997 participants were enrolled; 58% completed the CRC screening strategy they were assigned or chose. However, participants who were recommended colonoscopy completed screening at a significantly lower rate (38%) than participants who were recommended FOBT (67%) (P < .001) or given a choice between FOBT or colonoscopy (69%) (P < .001). Latinos and Asians (primarily Chinese) completed screening more often than African Americans. Moreover, nonwhite participants adhered more often to FOBT, while white participants adhered more often to colonoscopy. CONCLUSIONS: The common practice of universally recommending colonoscopy may reduce adherence to CRC screening, especially among racial/ethnic minorities. Significant variation in overall and strategy-specific adherence exists between racial/ethnic groups; however, this may be a proxy for health beliefs and/or language. These results suggest that patient preferences should be considered when making CRC screening recommendations. Trial Registration clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT00705731.
Authors: J D Hardcastle; J O Chamberlain; M H Robinson; S M Moss; S S Amar; T W Balfour; P D James; C M Mangham Journal: Lancet Date: 1996-11-30 Impact factor: 79.321
Authors: Bernard Levin; David A Lieberman; Beth McFarland; Kimberly S Andrews; Durado Brooks; John Bond; Chiranjeev Dash; Francis M Giardiello; Seth Glick; David Johnson; C Daniel Johnson; Theodore R Levin; Perry J Pickhardt; Douglas K Rex; Robert A Smith; Alan Thorson; Sidney J Winawer Journal: Gastroenterology Date: 2008-02-08 Impact factor: 22.682
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: Janet S de Moor; Robin A Cohen; Jean A Shapiro; Marion R Nadel; Susan A Sabatino; K Robin Yabroff; Stacey Fedewa; Richard Lee; V Paul Doria-Rose; Cheryl Altice; Carrie N Klabunde Journal: Prev Med Date: 2018-05-03 Impact factor: 4.018
Authors: Ronald E Myers; Randa Sifri; Constantine Daskalakis; Melissa DiCarlo; Praveen Ramakrishnan Geethakumari; James Cocroft; Christopher Minnick; Nancy Brisbon; Sally W Vernon Journal: J Natl Cancer Inst Date: 2014-12-06 Impact factor: 13.506
Authors: Erica G Bromley; Folasade P May; Lisa Federer; Brennan M R Spiegel; Martijn G H van Oijen Journal: Prev Med Date: 2014-12-04 Impact factor: 4.018
Authors: Lara A Rosenwasser; Jennifer S McCall-Hosenfeld; Carol S Weisman; Marianne M Hillemeier; Amanda N Perry; Cynthia H Chuang Journal: Rural Remote Health Date: 2013-10-08 Impact factor: 1.759