K Allen Greiner1, Christine M Daley2, Aaron Epp3, Aimee James4, Hung-Wen Yeh5, Mugur Geana6, Wendi Born3, Kimberly K Engelman7, Jeremy Shellhorn8, Christina M Hester9, Joseph LeMaster3, Daniel C Buckles10, Edward F Ellerbeck7. 1. Department of Family Medicine; University of Kansas Cancer Center. Electronic address: agreiner@kumc.edu. 2. Department of Family Medicine; Center for American Indian Community Health; Department of Preventive Medicine; University of Kansas Cancer Center. 3. Department of Family Medicine. 4. Siteman Cancer Center, Washington University, St. Louis, Missouri. 5. Department of Biostatistics; University of Kansas Cancer Center. 6. Department of Family Medicine; University of Kansas Cancer Center; Center of Excellence for Health Communications to Underserved Populations, William Allen White School of Journalism and Mass Communications. 7. Department of Preventive Medicine; University of Kansas Cancer Center. 8. School of Architecture Design and Planning, University of Kansas, Kansas City, Kansas. 9. Department of Family Medicine; University of Kansas Cancer Center. 10. Department of Internal Medicine, University of Kansas Medical Center.
Abstract
CONTEXT: Low-income and racial/ethnic minority populations experience disproportionate colorectal cancer (CRC) burden and poorer survival. Novel behavioral strategies are needed to improve screening rates in these groups. BACKGROUND: The study aimed to test a theoretically based "implementation intentions" intervention for improving CRC screening among unscreened adults in urban safety-net clinics. DESIGN: Randomized controlled trial. SETTING/PARTICIPANTS: Adults (N=470) aged ≥50 years, due for CRC screening, from urban safety-net clinics were recruited. INTERVENTION: The intervention (conducted in 2009-2011) was delivered via touchscreen computers that tailored informational messages to decisional stage and screening barriers. The computer then randomized participants to generic health information on diet and exercise (Comparison group) or "implementation intentions" questions and planning (Experimental group) specific to the CRC screening test chosen (fecal immunochemical test or colonoscopy). MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary study outcome was completion of CRC screening at 26 weeks based on test reports (analysis conducted in 2012-2013). RESULTS:The study population had a mean age of 57 years and was 42% non-Hispanic African American, 28% non-Hispanic white, and 27% Hispanic. Those receiving the implementation intentions-based intervention had higher odds (AOR=1.83, 95% CI=1.23, 2.73) of completing CRC screening than the Comparison group. Those with higher self-efficacy for screening (AOR=1.57, 95% CI=1.03, 2.39), history of asthma (AOR=2.20, 95% CI=1.26, 3.84), no history of diabetes (AOR=1.86, 95% CI=1.21, 2.86), and reporting they had never heard that "cutting on cancer" makes it spread (AOR=1.78, 95% CI=1.16, 2.72) were more likely to complete CRC screening. CONCLUSIONS: The results of this study suggest that programs incorporating an implementation intentions approach can contribute to successful completion of CRC screening even among very low-income and diverse primary care populations. Future initiatives to reduce CRC incidence and mortality disparities may be able to employ implementation intentions in large-scale efforts to encourage screening and prevention behaviors.
RCT Entities:
CONTEXT: Low-income and racial/ethnic minority populations experience disproportionate colorectal cancer (CRC) burden and poorer survival. Novel behavioral strategies are needed to improve screening rates in these groups. BACKGROUND: The study aimed to test a theoretically based "implementation intentions" intervention for improving CRC screening among unscreened adults in urban safety-net clinics. DESIGN: Randomized controlled trial. SETTING/PARTICIPANTS: Adults (N=470) aged ≥50 years, due for CRC screening, from urban safety-net clinics were recruited. INTERVENTION: The intervention (conducted in 2009-2011) was delivered via touchscreen computers that tailored informational messages to decisional stage and screening barriers. The computer then randomized participants to generic health information on diet and exercise (Comparison group) or "implementation intentions" questions and planning (Experimental group) specific to the CRC screening test chosen (fecal immunochemical test or colonoscopy). MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary study outcome was completion of CRC screening at 26 weeks based on test reports (analysis conducted in 2012-2013). RESULTS: The study population had a mean age of 57 years and was 42% non-Hispanic African American, 28% non-Hispanic white, and 27% Hispanic. Those receiving the implementation intentions-based intervention had higher odds (AOR=1.83, 95% CI=1.23, 2.73) of completing CRC screening than the Comparison group. Those with higher self-efficacy for screening (AOR=1.57, 95% CI=1.03, 2.39), history of asthma (AOR=2.20, 95% CI=1.26, 3.84), no history of diabetes (AOR=1.86, 95% CI=1.21, 2.86), and reporting they had never heard that "cutting on cancer" makes it spread (AOR=1.78, 95% CI=1.16, 2.72) were more likely to complete CRC screening. CONCLUSIONS: The results of this study suggest that programs incorporating an implementation intentions approach can contribute to successful completion of CRC screening even among very low-income and diverse primary care populations. Future initiatives to reduce CRC incidence and mortality disparities may be able to employ implementation intentions in large-scale efforts to encourage screening and prevention behaviors.
Authors: Margaret Holmes-Rovner; Gilbert A Williams; Susan Hoppough; Lisa Quillan; Rishan Butler; C William Given Journal: Cancer Pract Date: 2002 Sep-Oct
Authors: Joanna Buscemi; Yazmin San Miguel; Lisa Tussing-Humphreys; Elizabeth A Watts; Marian L Fitzgibbon; Karriem Watson; Robert A Winn; Kameron L Matthews; Yamile Molina Journal: Contemp Clin Trials Date: 2016-11-22 Impact factor: 2.226
Authors: Stacy N Davis; Shannon M Christy; Enmanuel A Chavarria; Rania Abdulla; Steven K Sutton; Alyssa R Schmidt; Susan T Vadaparampil; Gwendolyn P Quinn; Vani N Simmons; Chukwudi B Ufondu; Chitra Ravindra; Ida Schultz; Richard G Roetzheim; David Shibata; Cathy D Meade; Clement K Gwede Journal: Cancer Date: 2016-12-01 Impact factor: 6.860
Authors: Michael K Dougherty; Alison T Brenner; Seth D Crockett; Shivani Gupta; Stephanie B Wheeler; Manny Coker-Schwimmer; Laura Cubillos; Teri Malo; Daniel S Reuland Journal: JAMA Intern Med Date: 2018-12-01 Impact factor: 21.873
Authors: Nwamaka D Eneanya; Michael Winter; Howard Cabral; Katherine Waite; Lori Henault; Timothy Bickmore; Amresh Hanchate; Michael Wolf; Michael K Paasche-Orlow Journal: J Health Care Poor Underserved Date: 2016