Literature DB >> 25721254

Decisional stage distribution for colorectal cancer screening among diverse, low-income study participants.

C M Hester1, W K Born2, H W Yeh3, K L Young2, A S James2, C M Daley4, K A Greiner3.   

Abstract

Colorectal cancer (CRC) screening uptake among minorities and those with lower incomes is suboptimal. Behavioral interventions specifically tailored to these populations can increase screening rates and save lives. The Precaution Adoption Process Model (PAPM) allows assignment of a decisional stage for adoption of a behavior such as CRC screening. Here, we characterize the PAPM decisional stage distribution among 470 low income, racially and ethnically diverse study participants at intake into a behavioral intervention study designed to increase CRC screening uptake. We staged participants for stool blood test (SBT) and colonoscopy separately and used the highest stage for the two tests as the 'overall' stage for CRC screening. For SBT, sex, language (English versus Spanish) and doctor recommendation were significantly related to PAPM stage for CRC screening. For colonoscopy, language, education level, doctor recommendation and self-efficacy were related to stage. For overall CRC screening stage, all the variables associated with either SBT or colonoscopy, with the exception of language were significant. This study suggests attending to these key variables in designing interventions to promote CRC screening, particularly with respect to medically underserved populations.
© The Author 2015. Published by Oxford University Press. All rights reserved. For permissions, please email: journals.permissions@oup.com.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2015        PMID: 25721254      PMCID: PMC4434950          DOI: 10.1093/her/cyv006

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Health Educ Res        ISSN: 0268-1153


  41 in total

1.  Cancer screening - United States, 2010.

Authors: 
Journal:  MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep       Date:  2012-01-27       Impact factor: 17.586

2.  Experimental evidence for stages of health behavior change: the precaution adoption process model applied to home radon testing.

Authors:  N D Weinstein; J E Lyon; P M Sandman; C L Cuite
Journal:  Health Psychol       Date:  1998-09       Impact factor: 4.267

3.  Rethinking the information priorities of patients.

Authors:  Daniel R Longo; Steven H Woolf
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  2014-05-14       Impact factor: 56.272

4.  Colorectal cancer screening: physician recommendation is influential advice to Marylanders.

Authors:  Amy Gilbert; Norma Kanarek
Journal:  Prev Med       Date:  2005-08       Impact factor: 4.018

5.  Predictors of fecal occult blood test (FOBT) completion among low-income adults.

Authors:  K Allen Greiner; Aimee S James; Wendi Born; Sandra Hall; Kimberly K Engelman; Kolawole S Okuyemi; Jasjit S Ahluwalia
Journal:  Prev Med       Date:  2005-08       Impact factor: 4.018

Review 6.  Colorectal cancer screening barriers and facilitators in older persons.

Authors:  Idris Guessous; Chiranjeev Dash; Pauline Lapin; Mary Doroshenk; Robert A Smith; Carrie N Klabunde
Journal:  Prev Med       Date:  2009-12-16       Impact factor: 4.018

7.  A randomized controlled trial of the impact of targeted and tailored interventions on colorectal cancer screening.

Authors:  Ronald E Myers; Randa Sifri; Terry Hyslop; Michael Rosenthal; Sally W Vernon; James Cocroft; Thomas Wolf; Jocelyn Andrel; Richard Wender
Journal:  Cancer       Date:  2007-11-01       Impact factor: 6.860

8.  Physician recommendation and patient adherence for colorectal cancer screening.

Authors:  Shawna V Hudson; Jeanne M Ferrante; Pamela Ohman-Strickland; Karissa A Hahn; Eric K Shaw; Jennifer Hemler; Benjamin F Crabtree
Journal:  J Am Board Fam Med       Date:  2012 Nov-Dec       Impact factor: 2.657

9.  Using population data to reduce disparities in colorectal cancer screening, Arkansas, 2006.

Authors:  Paul Greene; Paulette Mehta; Karen Hye-cheon Kim Yeary; Zoran Bursac; Jianjun Zhang; Geoff Goldsmith; Ronda Henry-Tillman
Journal:  Prev Chronic Dis       Date:  2012       Impact factor: 2.830

10.  Decision Support and the Effectiveness of Web-based Delivery and Information Tailoring for Bowel Cancer Screening: An Exploratory Study.

Authors:  Ingrid H Flight; Carlene J Wilson; Ian T Zajac; Elizabeth Hart; Jane A McGillivray
Journal:  JMIR Res Protoc       Date:  2012-09-26
View more
  8 in total

1.  The Patient Experience of an Inadequate-Quality Bowel Preparation During the Colonoscopy Process: A Qualitative Study.

Authors:  Christine Cleary Kimpel; Kemberlee Bonnet; David Schlundt
Journal:  Gastroenterol Nurs       Date:  2022-06-25       Impact factor: 1.159

2.  High Schools' Adoption of Evidence-Based Practices for the Management of Exertional Heat Stroke.

Authors:  Samantha E Scarneo-Miller; Rebecca M Lopez; Kevin C Miller; William M Adams; Zachary Y Kerr; Douglas J Casa
Journal:  J Athl Train       Date:  2021-10-01       Impact factor: 3.824

3.  Analyzing factors associated with decisional stage of adopting breast cancer screening among Korean American women using precaution adoption process model.

Authors:  Seok Won Jin; Jongwook Lee; Hee Yun Lee
Journal:  Ethn Health       Date:  2018-10-16       Impact factor: 2.772

4.  Understanding the heterogeneity of cervical cancer screening non-participants: Data from a national sample of British women.

Authors:  Laura A V Marlow; Amanda J Chorley; Jessica Haddrell; Rebecca Ferrer; Jo Waller
Journal:  Eur J Cancer       Date:  2017-05-20       Impact factor: 9.162

5.  Systematic Review of Interventions to Increase Stool Blood Colorectal Cancer Screening in African Americans.

Authors:  Siddhartha Roy; Sabrina Dickey; Hsiao-Lan Wang; Alexandria Washington; Randy Polo; Clement K Gwede; John S Luque
Journal:  J Community Health       Date:  2021-02

6.  Creating an mHealth App for Colorectal Cancer Screening: User-Centered Design Approach.

Authors:  Lauren Griffin; Donghee Lee; Alyssa Jaisle; Peter Carek; Thomas George; Eric Laber; Benjamin Lok; François Modave; Electra Paskett; Janice Krieger
Journal:  JMIR Hum Factors       Date:  2019-05-08

Review 7.  Experiences of cervical screening and barriers to participation in the context of an organised programme: a systematic review and thematic synthesis.

Authors:  Amanda J Chorley; Laura A V Marlow; Alice S Forster; Jessica B Haddrell; Jo Waller
Journal:  Psychooncology       Date:  2016-04-12       Impact factor: 3.894

8.  Variation in health beliefs across different types of cervical screening non-participants.

Authors:  Laura A V Marlow; Rebecca A Ferrer; Amanda J Chorley; Jessica B Haddrell; Jo Waller
Journal:  Prev Med       Date:  2018-03-15       Impact factor: 4.018

  8 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.