Tung T Nguyen1, Janice Y Tsoh2, Kent Woo3, Susan L Stewart4, Gem M Le5, Adam Burke6, Ginny Gildengorin7, Rena J Pasick5, Jun Wang8, Elaine Chan9, Lei-Chun Fung10, Jane Jih5, Stephen J McPhee5. 1. Asian American Research Center on Health, San Francisco, California; Division of General Internal Medicine, Department of Medicine, University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, California. Electronic address: tung.nguyen@ucsf.edu. 2. Asian American Research Center on Health, San Francisco, California; Department of Psychiatry, University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, California. 3. Asian American Research Center on Health, San Francisco, California; NICOS Chinese Health Coalition, San Francisco, California. 4. Department of Public Health Sciences, University of California, Davis, Davis, California. 5. Asian American Research Center on Health, San Francisco, California; Division of General Internal Medicine, Department of Medicine, University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, California. 6. Asian American Research Center on Health, San Francisco, California; Department of Health Education, San Francisco State University, San Francisco, California. 7. Division of General Internal Medicine, Department of Medicine, University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, California. 8. Asian American Research Center on Health, San Francisco, California; The American College of Traditional Chinese Medicine, San Francisco, California. 9. Department of Psychiatry, University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, California; NICOS Chinese Health Coalition, San Francisco, California. 10. Asian American Research Center on Health, San Francisco, California; Chinatown Public Health Center, Department of Public Health, San Francisco, California.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION:Chinese Americans have low colorectal cancer (CRC) screening rates. Evidence-based interventions to increase CRC screening in this population are lacking. This study aims to compare the efficacy of two interventions in increasing CRC screening among Chinese Americans. DESIGN: Cluster randomized comparative trial. SETTING/PARTICIPANTS: From 2010 to 2014, a community-academic team conducted this study in San Francisco, CA with Chinese Americans aged 50-75 years who spoke English, Cantonese, or Mandarin. INTERVENTION: Lay health worker (LHW) intervention plus in-language brochure (LHW+Print) versus brochure (Print). LHWs in the LHW+Print arm were trained to teach participants about CRC in two small group sessions and two telephone calls. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Change in self-reports of ever having had CRC screening and being up to date for CRC screening from baseline to 6 months post-intervention. Statistical analysis was performed from 2014 to 2015. RESULTS: This study recruited 58 LHWs, who in turn recruited 725 participants. The average age of the participants was 62.2 years, with 81.1% women and 99.4% foreign born. Knowledge increase was significant (p<0.002) for nine measures in the LHW+Print group and six in the Print group. Both groups had increases in having ever been screened for CRC (LHW+Print, 73.9%-88.3%, p<0.0001; Print, 72.3%-79.5%, p=0.0003) and being up to date for CRC screening (LHW+Print, 60.0%-78.1%, p<0.0001; Print, 58.1%-64.1%, p=0.0003). In multivariable analyses, the intervention OR for LHW+Print versus Print was 1.94 (95% CI=1.34, 2.79) for ever screening and 2.02 (95% CI=1.40, 2.90) for being up to date. CONCLUSIONS: Both in-language print materials and LHW outreach plus print materials increased CRC screening among Chinese Americans. The combination of LHW+Print was more effective than Print alone. These findings can guide clinicians and policymakers in choosing appropriate interventions to increase CRC screening among Chinese American immigrants. TRIAL REGISTRATION: This study is registered at www.clinicaltrials.gov NCT00947206.
RCT Entities:
INTRODUCTION: Chinese Americans have low colorectal cancer (CRC) screening rates. Evidence-based interventions to increase CRC screening in this population are lacking. This study aims to compare the efficacy of two interventions in increasing CRC screening among Chinese Americans. DESIGN: Cluster randomized comparative trial. SETTING/PARTICIPANTS: From 2010 to 2014, a community-academic team conducted this study in San Francisco, CA with Chinese Americans aged 50-75 years who spoke English, Cantonese, or Mandarin. INTERVENTION: Lay health worker (LHW) intervention plus in-language brochure (LHW+Print) versus brochure (Print). LHWs in the LHW+Print arm were trained to teach participants about CRC in two small group sessions and two telephone calls. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Change in self-reports of ever having had CRC screening and being up to date for CRC screening from baseline to 6 months post-intervention. Statistical analysis was performed from 2014 to 2015. RESULTS: This study recruited 58 LHWs, who in turn recruited 725 participants. The average age of the participants was 62.2 years, with 81.1% women and 99.4% foreign born. Knowledge increase was significant (p<0.002) for nine measures in the LHW+Print group and six in the Print group. Both groups had increases in having ever been screened for CRC (LHW+Print, 73.9%-88.3%, p<0.0001; Print, 72.3%-79.5%, p=0.0003) and being up to date for CRC screening (LHW+Print, 60.0%-78.1%, p<0.0001; Print, 58.1%-64.1%, p=0.0003). In multivariable analyses, the intervention OR for LHW+Print versus Print was 1.94 (95% CI=1.34, 2.79) for ever screening and 2.02 (95% CI=1.40, 2.90) for being up to date. CONCLUSIONS: Both in-language print materials and LHW outreach plus print materials increased CRC screening among Chinese Americans. The combination of LHW+Print was more effective than Print alone. These findings can guide clinicians and policymakers in choosing appropriate interventions to increase CRC screening among Chinese American immigrants. TRIAL REGISTRATION: This study is registered at www.clinicaltrials.gov NCT00947206.
Authors: Michael V Maciosek; Ashley B Coffield; Nichol M Edwards; Thomas J Flottemesch; Michael J Goodman; Leif I Solberg Journal: Am J Prev Med Date: 2006-07 Impact factor: 5.043
Authors: Judith M E Walsh; Rene Salazar; Tung T Nguyen; Celia Kaplan; Lam Kieu Nguyen; Jimmy Hwang; Stephen J McPhee; Rena J Pasick Journal: Am J Prev Med Date: 2010-07 Impact factor: 5.043
Authors: Linda P Engelstad; Susan Stewart; Regina Otero-Sabogal; May S Leung; Patricia I Davis; Rena J Pasick Journal: Prev Med Date: 2005 Sep-Oct Impact factor: 4.018
Authors: M Baier; N Calonge; G Cutter; M McClatchey; S Schoentgen; S Hines; A Marcus; D Ahnen Journal: Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev Date: 2000-02 Impact factor: 4.254
Authors: J D Hardcastle; J O Chamberlain; M H Robinson; S M Moss; S S Amar; T W Balfour; P D James; C M Mangham Journal: Lancet Date: 1996-11-30 Impact factor: 79.321
Authors: Thu Quach; J Von Behren; J Tsoh; P Reynolds; L Fu; T Nguyen; M Le; T T Nguyen Journal: Int Arch Occup Environ Health Date: 2018-08-11 Impact factor: 3.015
Authors: Mi T Tran; Matthew B Jeong; Vickie V Nguyen; Michael T Sharp; Edgar P Yu; Filmer Yu; Elisa K Tong; Marjorie Kagawa-Singer; Charlene F Cuaresma; Angela U Sy; Janice Y Tsoh; Ginny L Gildengorin; Susan L Stewart; Tung T Nguyen Journal: Cancer Date: 2018-04-01 Impact factor: 6.860
Authors: David A Stupplebeen; Tetine L Sentell; Catherine M Pirkle; Bryan Juan; Alexis T Barnett-Sherrill; Joseph W Humphry; Sheryl R Yoshimura; Jasmin Kiernan; Claudia P Hartz; L Brooke Keliikoa Journal: Hawaii J Med Public Health Date: 2019-06