Erin M Ellis1, Deborah O Erwin2, Lina Jandorf3, Frances Saad-Harfouche2, Pathu Sriphanlop3, Nikia Clark2, Cassandre Dauphin2, Detric Johnson2, Lynne B Klasko-Foster4, Clarissa Martinez3, Jamilia Sly3, Drusilla White3, Gary Winkel3, Marc T Kiviniemi4. 1. Department of Community Health and Health Behavior, School of Public Health and Health Professions, University at Buffalo, SUNY, Buffalo, NY 14214, United States. Electronic address: erin.ellis@nih.gov. 2. Office of Cancer Health Disparities Research, Division of Cancer Prevention and Control, Roswell Park Cancer Institute, Elm and Carlton Streets, Buffalo, NY 14263, United States. 3. Department of Population Health Science and Policy, Center for Behavioral Oncology, Division of Cancer Prevention and Control, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, One Gustave Levy Place, New York, NY 10029, United States. 4. Department of Community Health and Health Behavior, School of Public Health and Health Professions, University at Buffalo, SUNY, Buffalo, NY 14214, United States.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To describe the methodology of a 2-arm randomized controlled trial that compared the effects of a narrative and didactic version of the Witness CARES (Community Awareness, Reach, & Empowerment for Screening) intervention on colorectal cancer screening behavior among African Americans, as well as the cognitive and affective determinants of screening. METHODS: Witness CARES targeted cognitive and affective predictors of screening using a culturally competent, community-based, narrative or didactic communication approach. New and existing community partners were recruited in two New York sites. Group randomization allocated programs to the narrative or didactic arm. Five phases of data collection were conducted: baseline, post-intervention, three-month, six-month, and qualitative interviews. The primary outcome was screening behavior; secondary outcomes included cognitive and affective determinants of screening. RESULTS:A total of 183 programs were conducted for 2655 attendees. Of these attendees, 19.4% (N=516) across 158 programs (50% narrative; 50% didactic) were study-eligible and consented to participate. Half (45.6%) of the programs were delivered to new community partners and 34.8% were delivered at faith-based organizations. Mean age of the total sample was 64.7years and 75.4% were female. CONCLUSION: The planned number of programs was delivered, but the proportion of study-eligible attendees was lower than predicted. This community-based participatory research approach was largely successful in involving the community served in the development and implementation of the intervention and study. Published by Elsevier Inc.
RCT Entities:
OBJECTIVE: To describe the methodology of a 2-arm randomized controlled trial that compared the effects of a narrative and didactic version of the Witness CARES (Community Awareness, Reach, & Empowerment for Screening) intervention on colorectal cancer screening behavior among African Americans, as well as the cognitive and affective determinants of screening. METHODS: Witness CARES targeted cognitive and affective predictors of screening using a culturally competent, community-based, narrative or didactic communication approach. New and existing community partners were recruited in two New York sites. Group randomization allocated programs to the narrative or didactic arm. Five phases of data collection were conducted: baseline, post-intervention, three-month, six-month, and qualitative interviews. The primary outcome was screening behavior; secondary outcomes included cognitive and affective determinants of screening. RESULTS: A total of 183 programs were conducted for 2655 attendees. Of these attendees, 19.4% (N=516) across 158 programs (50% narrative; 50% didactic) were study-eligible and consented to participate. Half (45.6%) of the programs were delivered to new community partners and 34.8% were delivered at faith-based organizations. Mean age of the total sample was 64.7years and 75.4% were female. CONCLUSION: The planned number of programs was delivered, but the proportion of study-eligible attendees was lower than predicted. This community-based participatory research approach was largely successful in involving the community served in the development and implementation of the intervention and study. Published by Elsevier Inc.
Authors: Steven H Itzkowitz; Sidney J Winawer; Marian Krauskopf; Mari Carlesimo; Felice H Schnoll-Sussman; Katy Huang; Thomas K Weber; Lina Jandorf Journal: Cancer Date: 2015-11-23 Impact factor: 6.860
Authors: Matthew W Kreuter; Melanie C Green; Joseph N Cappella; Michael D Slater; Meg E Wise; Doug Storey; Eddie M Clark; Daniel J O'Keefe; Deborah O Erwin; Kathleen Holmes; Leslie J Hinyard; Thomas Houston; Sabra Woolley Journal: Ann Behav Med Date: 2007-06
Authors: Iris Lansdorp-Vogelaar; Karen M Kuntz; Amy B Knudsen; Marjolein van Ballegooijen; Ann G Zauber; Ahmedin Jemal Journal: Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev Date: 2012-04-18 Impact factor: 4.254
Authors: April Oh; Anna Gaysynsky; Cheryl L Knott; Nora L Nock; Deborah O Erwin; Cynthia A Vinson Journal: Transl Behav Med Date: 2019-11-25 Impact factor: 3.046
Authors: Sarah J Miller; Jamilia R Sly; Kemi B Gaffney; Zhiye Jiang; Brittney Henry; Lina Jandorf Journal: Transl Behav Med Date: 2020-05-20 Impact factor: 3.046
Authors: Charles R Rogers; Phung Matthews; Ellen Brooks; Nathan Le Duc; Chasity Washington; Alicia McKoy; Al Edmonson; LaJune Lange; Michael D Fetters Journal: JCO Oncol Pract Date: 2021-05
Authors: Ellen Brooks; Jessica Y Islam; David G Perdue; Ethan Petersen; Marlene Camacho-Rivera; Carson Kennedy; Charles R Rogers Journal: Front Public Health Date: 2022-04-06