Donna McClish1, Patrica Carcaise-Edinboro2, Hali Esinhart3, Diane Baer Wilson4, Melanie K Bean5. 1. Department of Biostatistics and Massey Cancer Center, Virginia Commonwealth University, Richmond, VA. Electronic address: mcclish@vcu.edu. 2. Department of Health Administration, Virginia Commonwealth University, Richmond, VA. 3. Chiltern International, Wilmington, NC. 4. Department of Internal Medicine and Massey Cancer Center, Virginia Commonwealth University, Richmond, VA. 5. Department of Pediatrics, Children's Hospital of Richmond, Virginia Commonwealth University, Richmond, VA.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To determine whether response to a dietary intervention is greater among people with family history of colorectal cancer (CRC) compared with a general population. DESIGN: Cohort study examining participants from 2 related studies. SETTING:Rural Virginia. PARTICIPANTS: Seventy people with first-degree relatives with CRC and 113 participants from the intervention arm of a trial in the general population. INTERVENTION: Both studies implemented a low-intensity intervention delivered via telephone and mail, including low-literacy self-help booklets and personalized dietary feedback. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Fat, fiber, and fruit and vegetable behavior. ANALYSIS: Propensity score matching controlled for confounders. Mixed-model ANOVAs compared samples; mediation by perceived cancer risk was assessed. RESULTS: Participants in both groups significantly improved fat, fiber, and fruit and vegetable behavior at 1-month follow-up; there was significantly greater improvement in the general population sample. Cancer risk perception did not mediate the relationship between study sample and dietary change. CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS: Contrary to expectations, first-degree relatives of CRC patients did not respond better to a dietary intervention than the general population, nor was risk perception related to dietary change. Given the role of diet in CRC risk, additional research should investigate targeted strategies to improve dietary intakes of people at higher cancer risk.
RCT Entities:
OBJECTIVE: To determine whether response to a dietary intervention is greater among people with family history of colorectal cancer (CRC) compared with a general population. DESIGN: Cohort study examining participants from 2 related studies. SETTING: Rural Virginia. PARTICIPANTS: Seventy people with first-degree relatives with CRC and 113 participants from the intervention arm of a trial in the general population. INTERVENTION: Both studies implemented a low-intensity intervention delivered via telephone and mail, including low-literacy self-help booklets and personalized dietary feedback. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Fat, fiber, and fruit and vegetable behavior. ANALYSIS: Propensity score matching controlled for confounders. Mixed-model ANOVAs compared samples; mediation by perceived cancer risk was assessed. RESULTS:Participants in both groups significantly improved fat, fiber, and fruit and vegetable behavior at 1-month follow-up; there was significantly greater improvement in the general population sample. Cancer risk perception did not mediate the relationship between study sample and dietary change. CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS: Contrary to expectations, first-degree relatives of CRC patients did not respond better to a dietary intervention than the general population, nor was risk perception related to dietary change. Given the role of diet in CRC risk, additional research should investigate targeted strategies to improve dietary intakes of people at higher cancer risk.
Authors: Elizabeth Fries; Patricia Edinboro; Donna McClish; Laura Manion; Deborah Bowen; Shirley A A Beresford; Jennifer Ripley Journal: Am J Prev Med Date: 2005-02 Impact factor: 5.043
Authors: Beth A Glenn; Alison K Herrmann; Catherine M Crespi; Cynthia M Mojica; L Cindy Chang; Annette E Maxwell; Roshan Bastani Journal: Health Psychol Date: 2011-07 Impact factor: 4.267
Authors: Lenka Koklesova; Alena Liskova; Marek Samec; Tawar Qaradakhi; Anthony Zulli; Karel Smejkal; Karol Kajo; Jana Jakubikova; Payam Behzadi; Martin Pec; Pavol Zubor; Kamil Biringer; Taeg Kyu Kwon; Dietrich Büsselberg; Gustavo R Sarria; Frank A Giordano; Olga Golubnitschaja; Peter Kubatka Journal: EPMA J Date: 2020-05-29 Impact factor: 6.543