Literature DB >> 32381556

Effect of a Digital Health Intervention on Decreasing Barriers and Increasing Facilitators for Colorectal Cancer Screening in Vulnerable Patients.

Nancy M Denizard-Thompson1, David P Miller2, Anna C Snavely3, John G Spangler4, L Doug Case3, Kathryn E Weaver3.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Colorectal cancer is the second leading cause of cancer-related death in the United States, in part, because one third of Americans fail to get screened. In a prior randomized controlled trial, we found that an iPad patient decision aid called Mobile Patient Technology for Health-CRC (mPATH-CRC) doubled the proportion of patients who completed colorectal cancer screening.
METHODS: All data for the current analysis were collected as part of a randomized controlled trial to determine the impact of mPATH-CRC on receipt of colorectal cancer screening within 24 weeks. Participants were enrolled from six community-based primary care practices between June 2014 and May 2016 and randomized to either usual care or mPATH-CRC. Six potential mediators of the intervention effect on screening were considered. The Iacobucci method was used to assess the significance of the mediation.
RESULTS: A total of 408 patients had complete data for all potential mediators. Overall, the potential mediators accounted for approximately three fourths (76.3%) of the effect of the program on screening completion. Perceived benefits, self-efficacy, ability to state a screening decision, and patient-provider discussion were statistically significant mediators. Patient-provider discussion accounted for the largest proportion of the effect of mPATH-CRC (70.7%).
CONCLUSIONS: mPATH-CRC increased completion of colorectal cancer screening by affecting patient-level and system-level mediators. However, the most powerful mediator was the occurrence of a patient-provider discussion about screening. Digital interventions like mPATH-CRC are an important adjunct to the patient-provider encounter. IMPACT: Understanding the factors that mediated mPATH-CRC's success is paramount to developing other effective interventions. ©2020 American Association for Cancer Research.

Entities:  

Year:  2020        PMID: 32381556      PMCID: PMC7416430          DOI: 10.1158/1055-9965.EPI-19-1199

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev        ISSN: 1055-9965            Impact factor:   4.254


  27 in total

1.  Reasons for non-response to a direct-mailed FIT kit program: lessons learned from a pragmatic colorectal-cancer screening study in a federally sponsored health center.

Authors:  Gloria D Coronado; Jennifer L Schneider; Jennifer J Sanchez; Amanda F Petrik; Beverly Green
Journal:  Transl Behav Med       Date:  2015-03       Impact factor: 3.046

2.  Asymptotic and resampling strategies for assessing and comparing indirect effects in multiple mediator models.

Authors:  Kristopher J Preacher; Andrew F Hayes
Journal:  Behav Res Methods       Date:  2008-08

3.  Effectiveness of a web-based colorectal cancer screening patient decision aid: a randomized controlled trial in a mixed-literacy population.

Authors:  David P Miller; John G Spangler; L Doug Case; David C Goff; Sonal Singh; Michael P Pignone
Journal:  Am J Prev Med       Date:  2011-06       Impact factor: 5.043

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.  Perceptions of Provider Communication Among Vulnerable Patients With Diabetes: Influences of Medical Mistrust and Health Literacy.

Authors:  Richard O White; Rosette J Chakkalakal; Caroline A Presley; Aihua Bian; Jonathan S Schildcrout; Kenneth A Wallston; Shari Barto; Sunil Kripalani; Russell Rothman
Journal:  J Health Commun       Date:  2016-09-23

Review 6.  Systematic Review and Meta-study Synthesis of Qualitative Studies Evaluating Facilitators and Barriers to Participation in Colorectal Cancer Screening.

Authors:  Gladys N Honein-AbouHaidar; Monika Kastner; Vincent Vuong; Laure Perrier; Corinne Daly; Linda Rabeneck; Sharon Straus; Nancy N Baxter
Journal:  Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev       Date:  2016-04-13       Impact factor: 4.254

7.  Health literacy and self-efficacy for participating in colorectal cancer screening: The role of information processing.

Authors:  Christian von Wagner; Claudia Semmler; Anna Good; Jane Wardle
Journal:  Patient Educ Couns       Date:  2009-04-21

8.  Comparative effectiveness of fecal immunochemical test outreach, colonoscopy outreach, and usual care for boosting colorectal cancer screening among the underserved: a randomized clinical trial.

Authors:  Samir Gupta; Ethan A Halm; Don C Rockey; Marcia Hammons; Mark Koch; Elizabeth Carter; Luisa Valdez; Liyue Tong; Chul Ahn; Michael Kashner; Keith Argenbright; Jasmin Tiro; Zhuo Geng; Sandi Pruitt; Celette Sugg Skinner
Journal:  JAMA Intern Med       Date:  2013-10-14       Impact factor: 21.873

9.  Effect of Reminding Patients to Complete Fecal Immunochemical Testing: A Comparative Effectiveness Study of Automated and Live Approaches.

Authors:  Gloria D Coronado; Jennifer S Rivelli; Morgan J Fuoco; William M Vollmer; Amanda F Petrik; Erin Keast; Sara Barker; Emily Topalanchik; Ricardo Jimenez
Journal:  J Gen Intern Med       Date:  2017-10-10       Impact factor: 5.128

10.  Comparison of logistic-regression based methods for simple mediation analysis with a dichotomous outcome variable.

Authors:  Judith J M Rijnhart; Jos W R Twisk; Iris Eekhout; Martijn W Heymans
Journal:  BMC Med Res Methodol       Date:  2019-01-21       Impact factor: 4.615

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.