Literature DB >> 26227576

Effects of personalized colorectal cancer risk information on laypersons' interest in colorectal cancer screening: The importance of individual differences.

Paul K J Han1, Christine W Duarte2, Susannah Daggett3, Andrea Siewers2, Bill Killam4, Kahsi A Smith2, Andrew N Freedman5.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate how personalized quantitative colorectal cancer (CRC) risk information affects laypersons' interest in CRC screening, and to explore factors influencing these effects.
METHODS: An online pre-post experiment was conducted in which a convenience sample (N=578) of laypersons, aged >50, were provided quantitative personalized estimates of lifetime CRC risk, calculated by the National Cancer Institute Colorectal Cancer Risk Assessment Tool (CCRAT). Self-reported interest in CRC screening was measured immediately before and after CCRAT use; sociodemographic characteristics and prior CRC screening history were also assessed. Multivariable analyses assessed participants' change in interest in screening, and subgroup differences in this change.
RESULTS: Personalized CRC risk information had no overall effect on CRC screening interest, but significant subgroup differences were observed. Change in screening interest was greater among individuals with recent screening (p=.015), higher model-estimated cancer risk (p=.0002), and lower baseline interest (p<.0001), with individuals at highest baseline interest demonstrating negative (not neutral) change in interest.
CONCLUSION: Effects of quantitative personalized CRC risk information on laypersons' interest in CRC screening differ among individuals depending on prior screening history, estimated cancer risk, and baseline screening interest. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: Personalized cancer risk information has personalized effects-increasing and decreasing screening interest in different individuals.
Copyright © 2015 Elsevier Ireland Ltd. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Colorectal cancer; Personalized risk information; Screening

Mesh:

Year:  2015        PMID: 26227576      PMCID: PMC4573248          DOI: 10.1016/j.pec.2015.07.010

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Patient Educ Couns        ISSN: 0738-3991


  40 in total

Review 1.  The effect of risk communication on risk perceptions: the significance of individual differences.

Authors:  M Gerrard; F X Gibbons; M Reis-Bergan
Journal:  J Natl Cancer Inst Monogr       Date:  1999

Review 2.  Introduction of section: persuasion for the purpose of cancer risk reduction: understanding responses to risk communications.

Authors:  L G Aspinwall
Journal:  J Natl Cancer Inst Monogr       Date:  1999

3.  Trends in colorectal cancer test use among vulnerable populations in the United States.

Authors:  Carrie N Klabunde; Kathleen A Cronin; Nancy Breen; William R Waldron; Anita H Ambs; Marion R Nadel
Journal:  Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev       Date:  2011-06-08       Impact factor: 4.254

Review 4.  Cancer screening decisions.

Authors:  K D McCaul; H E Tulloch
Journal:  J Natl Cancer Inst Monogr       Date:  1999

5.  Harvard report on cancer prevention volume 4: Harvard Cancer Risk Index. Risk Index Working Group, Harvard Center for Cancer Prevention.

Authors:  G A Colditz; K A Atwood; K Emmons; R R Monson; W C Willett; D Trichopoulos; D J Hunter
Journal:  Cancer Causes Control       Date:  2000-07       Impact factor: 2.506

6.  Genetic and environmental risk assessment and colorectal cancer screening in an average-risk population: a randomized trial.

Authors:  David S Weinberg; Ronald E Myers; Eileen Keenan; Karen Ruth; Randa Sifri; Barry Ziring; Eric Ross; Sharon L Manne
Journal:  Ann Intern Med       Date:  2014-10-21       Impact factor: 25.391

Review 7.  Personalised risk communication for informed decision making about taking screening tests.

Authors:  Adrian G K Edwards; Gurudutt Naik; Harry Ahmed; Glyn J Elwyn; Timothy Pickles; Kerry Hood; Rebecca Playle
Journal:  Cochrane Database Syst Rev       Date:  2013-02-28

8.  Tailoring colorectal cancer screening by considering risk of advanced proximal neoplasia.

Authors:  Thomas F Imperiale; Elizabeth A Glowinski; Ching Lin-Cooper; David F Ransohoff
Journal:  Am J Med       Date:  2012-10-09       Impact factor: 4.965

9.  Modeling adherence to colorectal cancer screening.

Authors:  R E Myers; E Ross; C Jepson; T Wolf; A Balshem; L Millner; H Leventhal
Journal:  Prev Med       Date:  1994-03       Impact factor: 4.018

10.  Regional, racial, and gender differences in colorectal cancer screening in middle-aged African-Americans and Whites.

Authors:  Phyllis M Wallace; Rie Suzuki
Journal:  J Cancer Educ       Date:  2012-12       Impact factor: 2.037

View more
  3 in total

1.  Reactions to online colorectal cancer risk estimates among a nationally representative sample of adults who have never been screened.

Authors:  Isaac M Lipkus; Constance M Johnson; Sathya Amarasekara; Wei Pan; John A Updegraff
Journal:  J Behav Med       Date:  2017-11-15

2.  Effects of Personalized Risk Information on Patients Referred for Lung Cancer Screening with Low-Dose CT.

Authors:  Paul K J Han; Christine Lary; Adam Black; Caitlin Gutheil; Hayley Mandeville; Jason Yahwak; Mayuko Fukunaga
Journal:  Med Decis Making       Date:  2019-10-20       Impact factor: 2.583

3.  A targeted promotional DVD fails to improve Māori and Pacific participation rates in the New Zealand bowel screening pilot: results from a pseudo-randomised controlled trial.

Authors:  Karen Bartholomew; Lifeng Zhou; Sue Crengle; Elizabeth Buswell; Anne Buckley; Peter Sandiford
Journal:  BMC Public Health       Date:  2019-09-09       Impact factor: 3.295

  3 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.