Yamile Molina1,2, Katherine J Briant1, Janeth I Sanchez3, Mary A O'Connell3, Beti Thompson1. 1. a Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center , Seattle , WA , USA. 2. b Division of Community Health Sciences, School of Public Health , University of Illinois at Chicago , Chicago , IL , USA. 3. c The Department of Plant and Environmental Sciences , New Mexico State University , Las Cruces , NM , USA.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Innovative technologies have been used to promote colorectal cancer (CRC) screening among the underserved. However, the impact of these innovative technologies on knowledge and social engagement likelihood as they relate to subsequent intention to be screened across different populations has not been fully explored. DESIGN: Using a pre-post-test design with an inflatable walk-through colon, we assessed changes in knowledge and social engagement likelihood across populations and their associations with intention to be screened in two community settings. One was a community setting in Washington State (WA); the other, a college campus in New Mexico (NM). Differential effects on knowledge and social engagement likelihood were examined across demographic groups (race/ethnicity, gender, age, education, insurance status, and geographic region). Finally, we assessed if changes in knowledge and social engagement likelihood were associated with CRC screening intention. RESULTS: NM males had greater gains in CRC knowledge than NM females; in WA, Hispanics, younger, less educated, and uninsured participants had greater gains in knowledge. NM females and younger WA participants were more likely to discuss CRC with their social networks than NM males and older WA participants. In WA, Hispanics and older adults reported greater intention to be screened for CRC. Change in social engagement likelihood, but not knowledge, was associated with intention to be screened. CONCLUSIONS: The effectiveness of health promotion technologies on knowledge and social engagement may vary across different demographic characteristics. Further, the importance of social engagement likelihood in interacting with intention to be screened was substantiated.
OBJECTIVE: Innovative technologies have been used to promote colorectal cancer (CRC) screening among the underserved. However, the impact of these innovative technologies on knowledge and social engagement likelihood as they relate to subsequent intention to be screened across different populations has not been fully explored. DESIGN: Using a pre-post-test design with an inflatable walk-through colon, we assessed changes in knowledge and social engagement likelihood across populations and their associations with intention to be screened in two community settings. One was a community setting in Washington State (WA); the other, a college campus in New Mexico (NM). Differential effects on knowledge and social engagement likelihood were examined across demographic groups (race/ethnicity, gender, age, education, insurance status, and geographic region). Finally, we assessed if changes in knowledge and social engagement likelihood were associated with CRC screening intention. RESULTS: NM males had greater gains in CRC knowledge than NM females; in WA, Hispanics, younger, less educated, and uninsured participants had greater gains in knowledge. NM females and younger WA participants were more likely to discuss CRC with their social networks than NM males and older WA participants. In WA, Hispanics and older adults reported greater intention to be screened for CRC. Change in social engagement likelihood, but not knowledge, was associated with intention to be screened. CONCLUSIONS: The effectiveness of health promotion technologies on knowledge and social engagement may vary across different demographic characteristics. Further, the importance of social engagement likelihood in interacting with intention to be screened was substantiated.
Authors: Charles E Basch; Patricia Zybert; Randi L Wolf; Corey H Basch; Ralph Ullman; Celia Shmukler; Fionnuala King; Alfred I Neugut; Steven Shea Journal: J Community Health Date: 2015-10
Authors: Kristen J Wells; Diana S Lima; Cathy D Meade; Teresita Muñoz-Antonia; Isabel Scarinci; Allison McGuire; Clement K Gwede; W Jack Pledger; Edward Partridge; Joseph Lipscomb; Roland Matthews; Jaime Matta; Idhaliz Flores; Roy Weiner; Timothy Turner; Lucio Miele; Thomas E Wiese; Mona Fouad; Carlos S Moreno; Michelle Lacey; Debra W Christie; Eboni G Price-Haywood; Gwendolyn P Quinn; Domenico Coppola; Stephen O Sodeke; B Lee Green; Maureen Y Lichtveld Journal: Eval Program Plann Date: 2013-12-26
Authors: Terry C Davis; Mark V Williams; Estela Marin; Ruth M Parker; Jonathan Glass Journal: CA Cancer J Clin Date: 2002 May-Jun Impact factor: 508.702
Authors: Ann G Zauber; Iris Lansdorp-Vogelaar; Amy B Knudsen; Janneke Wilschut; Marjolein van Ballegooijen; Karen M Kuntz Journal: Ann Intern Med Date: 2008-10-06 Impact factor: 25.391
Authors: Ann Scheck McAlearney; Katherine W Reeves; Stephanie L Dickinson; Kimberly M Kelly; Cathy Tatum; Mira L Katz; Electra D Paskett Journal: Cancer Date: 2008-01-15 Impact factor: 6.860
Authors: Aimee S James; Melissa K Filippi; Christina M Pacheco; Lance Cully; David Perdue; Won S Choi; K Allen Greiner; Christine M Daley Journal: Prev Chronic Dis Date: 2013-10-03 Impact factor: 2.830
Authors: Janice Y Tsoh; Elisa K Tong; Angela U Sy; Susan L Stewart; Ginny L Gildengorin; Tung T Nguyen Journal: Cancer Date: 2018-04-01 Impact factor: 6.860
Authors: Andrew S Boutsicaris; James L Fisher; Darrell M Gray; Toyin Adeyanju; Jacquelin S Holland; Electra D Paskett Journal: Cancer Causes Control Date: 2021-06-24 Impact factor: 2.506