Anita Y Kinney1, Watcharaporn Boonyasiriwat, Scott T Walters, Lisa M Pappas, Antoinette M Stroup, Marc D Schwartz, Sandra L Edwards, Amy Rogers, Wendy K Kohlmann, Kenneth M Boucher, Sally W Vernon, Rebecca G Simmons, Jan T Lowery, Kristina Flores, Charles L Wiggins, Deirdre A Hill, Randall W Burt, Marc S Williams, John C Higginbotham. 1. Anita Y. Kinney, Antoinette M. Stroup, Sandra L. Edwards, Kenneth M. Boucher, and Randall W. Burt, School of Medicine, University of Utah; Anita Y. Kinney, Lisa M. Pappas, Antoinette M. Stroup, Sandra L. Edwards, Amy Rogers, Wendy K. Kohlmann, Kenneth M. Boucher, Rebecca G. Simmons, and Randall W. Burt, Huntsman Cancer Institute, University of Utah; Marc S. Williams, Intermountain Healthcare, Salt Lake City, UT; Watcharaporn Boonyasiriwat, Chulalongkom University, Bangkok, Thailand; Scott T. Walters, School of Public Health, University of North Texas Health Science Center at Fort Worth, Fort Worth; Sally W. Vernon, The University of Texas School of Public Health, Houston, TX; Marc D. Schwartz, Georgetown University; Marc D. Schwartz, Lombardi Comprehensive Cancer Center, Georgetown University, Washington, DC; Jan T. Lowery, Colorado School of Public Health, University of Colorado, Denver, CO; Kristina Flores, University of New Mexico Cancer Center; Anita Y. Kinney, Charles L. Wiggins, and Deirdre A. Hill, University of New Mexico Cancer Center and School of Medicine, Albuquerque, NM; Marc S. Williams, Genomic Medicine Institute, Geisinger Health System, Danville, PA; John C. Higginbotham, Community and Rural Medicine Institute for Rural Health Research, College of Community Health Sciences, University of Alabama, Tuscaloosa, AL.
Abstract
PURPOSE: The rate of adherence to regular colonoscopy screening in individuals at increased familial risk of colorectal cancer (CRC) is suboptimal, especially among rural and other geographically underserved populations. Remote interventions may overcome geographic and system-level barriers. We compared the efficacy of a telehealth-based personalized risk assessment and communication intervention with a mailed educational brochure for improving colonoscopy screening among at-risk relatives of patients with CRC. METHODS:Eligible individuals age 30 to 74 years who were not up-to-date with risk-appropriate screening and were not candidates for genetic testing were recruited after contacting patients with CRC or their next of kin in five states. Enrollees were randomly assigned as family units to either an active, personalized intervention that incorporated evidence-based risk communication and behavior change techniques, or a mailed educational brochure. The primary outcome was medically verified colonoscopy within 9 months of the intervention. RESULTS: Of the 481 eligible and randomly assigned at-risk relatives, 79.8% completed the outcome assessments within 9 months; 35.4% of those in the personalized intervention group and 15.7% of those in the comparison group obtained a colonoscopy. In an intent-to-treat analysis, the telehealth group was almost three times as likely to get screened as the low-intensity comparison group (odds ratio, 2.83; 95% CI, 1.87 to 4.28; P < .001). Persons residing in rural areas and those with lower incomes benefitted at the same level as did urban residents. CONCLUSION: Remote personalized interventions that consider family history and incorporate evidence-based risk communication and behavior change strategies may promote risk-appropriate screening in close relatives of patients with CRC.
RCT Entities:
PURPOSE: The rate of adherence to regular colonoscopy screening in individuals at increased familial risk of colorectal cancer (CRC) is suboptimal, especially among rural and other geographically underserved populations. Remote interventions may overcome geographic and system-level barriers. We compared the efficacy of a telehealth-based personalized risk assessment and communication intervention with a mailed educational brochure for improving colonoscopy screening among at-risk relatives of patients with CRC. METHODS: Eligible individuals age 30 to 74 years who were not up-to-date with risk-appropriate screening and were not candidates for genetic testing were recruited after contacting patients with CRC or their next of kin in five states. Enrollees were randomly assigned as family units to either an active, personalized intervention that incorporated evidence-based risk communication and behavior change techniques, or a mailed educational brochure. The primary outcome was medically verified colonoscopy within 9 months of the intervention. RESULTS: Of the 481 eligible and randomly assigned at-risk relatives, 79.8% completed the outcome assessments within 9 months; 35.4% of those in the personalized intervention group and 15.7% of those in the comparison group obtained a colonoscopy. In an intent-to-treat analysis, the telehealth group was almost three times as likely to get screened as the low-intensity comparison group (odds ratio, 2.83; 95% CI, 1.87 to 4.28; P < .001). Persons residing in rural areas and those with lower incomes benefitted at the same level as did urban residents. CONCLUSION: Remote personalized interventions that consider family history and incorporate evidence-based risk communication and behavior change strategies may promote risk-appropriate screening in close relatives of patients with CRC.
Authors: Sally W Vernon; Leona K Bartholomew; Amy McQueen; Judy L Bettencourt; Anthony Greisinger; Sharon P Coan; David Lairson; Wenyaw Chan; S T Hawley; R E Myers Journal: Ann Behav Med Date: 2011-06
Authors: Jan T Lowery; Al Marcus; Anita Kinney; Deborah Bowen; Dianne M Finkelstein; Nora Horick; Kathleen Garrett; Robert Haile; Robert Sandler; Dennis J Ahnen Journal: Contemp Clin Trials Date: 2011-11-12 Impact factor: 2.226
Authors: Ann G Zauber; Sidney J Winawer; Michael J O'Brien; Iris Lansdorp-Vogelaar; Marjolein van Ballegooijen; Benjamin F Hankey; Weiji Shi; John H Bond; Melvin Schapiro; Joel F Panish; Edward T Stewart; Jerome D Waye Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2012-02-23 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Allison E Anderson; Kevin A Henry; N Jewel Samadder; Ray M Merrill; Anita Y Kinney Journal: Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol Date: 2012-12-04 Impact factor: 11.382
Authors: Yen Y Tan; Julie McGaughran; Kaltin Ferguson; Michael D Walsh; Daniel D Buchanan; Joanne P Young; Penelope M Webb; Andreas Obermair; Amanda B Spurdle Journal: Int J Cancer Date: 2013-01-11 Impact factor: 7.396
Authors: Beverly B Green; Ching-Yun Wang; Melissa L Anderson; Jessica Chubak; Richard T Meenan; Sally W Vernon; Sharon Fuller Journal: Ann Intern Med Date: 2013-03-05 Impact factor: 25.391
Authors: Wendy S Rubinstein; Louise S Acheson; Suzanne M O'Neill; Mack T Ruffin; Catharine Wang; Jennifer L Beaumont; Nan Rothrock Journal: Genet Med Date: 2011-11 Impact factor: 8.822
Authors: Ryan J Courtney; Christine L Paul; Mariko L Carey; Robert W Sanson-Fisher; Finlay A Macrae; Catherine D'Este; David Hill; Daniel Barker; Jody Simmons Journal: BMC Cancer Date: 2013-01-10 Impact factor: 4.430
Authors: Alexander Bauer; Jürgen F Riemann; Thomas Seufferlein; Max Reinshagen; Stephan Hollerbach; Ulrike Haug; Susanne Unverzagt; Stephanie Boese; Madeleine Ritter-Herschbach; Patrick Jahn; Thomas Frese; Michael Harris; Margarete Landenberger Journal: Dtsch Arztebl Int Date: 2018-10-26 Impact factor: 5.594
Authors: Lisa Madlensky; Angela M Trepanier; Deborah Cragun; Barbara Lerner; Kristen M Shannon; Heather Zierhut Journal: J Genet Couns Date: 2017-02-06 Impact factor: 2.537
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: Anita Y Kinney; Laurie E Steffen; Barbara H Brumbach; Wendy Kohlmann; Ruofei Du; Ji-Hyun Lee; Amanda Gammon; Karin Butler; Saundra S Buys; Antoinette M Stroup; Rebecca A Campo; Kristina G Flores; Jeanne S Mandelblatt; Marc D Schwartz Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2016-06-20 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Laurie E Steffen; Kenneth M Boucher; Barbara H Damron; Lisa M Pappas; Scott T Walters; Kristina G Flores; Watcharaporn Boonyasiriwat; Sally W Vernon; Antoinette M Stroup; Marc D Schwartz; Sandra L Edwards; Wendy K Kohlmann; Jan T Lowery; Charles L Wiggins; Deirdre A Hill; John C Higginbotham; Randall Burt; Rebecca G Simmons; Anita Y Kinney Journal: Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev Date: 2015-06-22 Impact factor: 4.254
Authors: Roshan Bastani; Beth A Glenn; Annette E Maxwell; Patricia A Ganz; Cynthia M Mojica; Susan Alber; Catherine M Crespi; L Cindy Chang Journal: Cancer Date: 2015-05-06 Impact factor: 6.860
Authors: Morgan M Millar; Anita Y Kinney; Nicola J Camp; Lisa A Cannon-Albright; Mia Hashibe; David F Penson; Anne C Kirchhoff; Deborah W Neklason; Alicia W Gilsenan; Gretchen S Dieck; Antoinette M Stroup; Sandra L Edwards; Carrie Bateman; Marjorie E Carter; Carol Sweeney Journal: Am J Epidemiol Date: 2019-05-01 Impact factor: 4.897
Authors: Jan T Lowery; Dennis J Ahnen; Paul C Schroy; Heather Hampel; Nancy Baxter; C Richard Boland; Randall W Burt; Lynn Butterly; Megan Doerr; Mary Doroshenk; W Gregory Feero; Nora Henrikson; Uri Ladabaum; David Lieberman; Elizabeth G McFarland; Susan K Peterson; Martha Raymond; N Jewel Samadder; Sapna Syngal; Thomas K Weber; Ann G Zauber; Robert Smith Journal: Cancer Date: 2016-06-03 Impact factor: 6.860
Authors: Belinda Vicuña; Harold D Delaney; Kristina G Flores; Lori Ballinger; Melanie Royce; Zoneddy Dayao; Tuya Pal; Anita Y Kinney Journal: J Community Genet Date: 2017-10-02
Authors: Victoria L Champion; Shannon M Christy; William Rakowski; Wambui G Gathirua-Mwangi; Will L Tarver; Lisa Carter-Harris; Andrea A Cohee; Andrew R Marley; Nenette M Jessup; Erika Biederman; Carla D Kettler; Timothy E Stump; Patrick Monahan; David R Lairson; Susan M Rawl Journal: Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev Date: 2018-09-04 Impact factor: 4.254