OBJECTIVE: Prognosis for oral cancer is substantially improved when diagnosed early. This research aimed to evaluate an intervention to promote early presentation of oral cancer. METHODS: Participants were randomly assigned to a leaflet group (n = 42), a one-to-one group (n = 46) or a control group (n = 24). Participants in the leaflet group read a theory-based (Extended Self-Regulatory Model; Social Cognitive Theory) leaflet on how to spot oral cancer early. Those in the one-to-one group received a brief, interactional discussion on early presentation of oral cancer and were then asked to read the leaflet. Participants in the control group received no information about oral cancer. RESULTS: The leaflet and the one-to-one instruction led to more accurate knowledge of oral cancer, decreased anticipated delay, and increased understanding, likelihood and confidence to perform self-examination. Neither intervention raised participants' anxiety. There were minimal differences between the two interventions, yet both were superior to the control group. CONCLUSION: This piloting indicates the initial effectiveness of an brief intervention purposefully designed for people at risk of developing oral cancer. PRACTICE IMPLICATION: A low cost intervention may be a useful tool to encourage early detection of oral cancer. This could be embedded into routine consultations or an early detection programme.
RCT Entities:
OBJECTIVE: Prognosis for oral cancer is substantially improved when diagnosed early. This research aimed to evaluate an intervention to promote early presentation of oral cancer. METHODS:Participants were randomly assigned to a leaflet group (n = 42), a one-to-one group (n = 46) or a control group (n = 24). Participants in the leaflet group read a theory-based (Extended Self-Regulatory Model; Social Cognitive Theory) leaflet on how to spot oral cancer early. Those in the one-to-one group received a brief, interactional discussion on early presentation of oral cancer and were then asked to read the leaflet. Participants in the control group received no information about oral cancer. RESULTS: The leaflet and the one-to-one instruction led to more accurate knowledge of oral cancer, decreased anticipated delay, and increased understanding, likelihood and confidence to perform self-examination. Neither intervention raised participants' anxiety. There were minimal differences between the two interventions, yet both were superior to the control group. CONCLUSION: This piloting indicates the initial effectiveness of an brief intervention purposefully designed for people at risk of developing oral cancer. PRACTICE IMPLICATION: A low cost intervention may be a useful tool to encourage early detection of oral cancer. This could be embedded into routine consultations or an early detection programme.
Authors: A L Cope; E Barnes; E P Howells; A M Rockey; A J Karki; M J Wilson; M A O Lewis; J G Cowpe Journal: Br Dent J Date: 2016-07-08 Impact factor: 1.626
Authors: Nikhil A Ahuja; Satish K Kedia; Kenneth D Ward; Latrice C Pichon; Weiyu Chen; Patrick J Dillon; Hitesh Navaparia Journal: J Cancer Educ Date: 2021-01-27 Impact factor: 1.771
Authors: Sara Macdonald; Yvonne Cunningham; Chris Patterson; Katie Robb; Una Macleod; Thomas Anker; Shona Hilton Journal: BMC Public Health Date: 2018-04-26 Impact factor: 3.295