Victoria L Champion1, Shannon M Christy2, William Rakowski3, David R Lairson4, Patrick O Monahan5, Wambui G Gathirua-Mwangi6, Timothy E Stump7, Erika B Biederman6, Carla D Kettler5, Susan M Rawl8. 1. Department of Community and Health Systems, Indiana University School of Nursing, Indianapolis, Indiana; Indiana University Simon Comprehensive Cancer Center, Indianapolis, Indiana. Electronic address: vchampio@iu.edu. 2. Department of Health Outcomes and Behavior, Division of Population Science, H. Lee Moffitt Cancer Center and Research Institute, Tampa, Florida; Department of Oncologic Sciences, Morsani College of Medicine, University of South Florida, Tampa, Florida. 3. Professor Emeritus, Brown University, Providence, Rhode Island. 4. School of Public Health, University of Texas Health Science Center at Houston, Houston, Texas. 5. Department of Biostatistics, Indiana University School of Medicine, Richard M. Fairbanks School of Public Health, Indianapolis, Indiana. 6. Department of Community and Health Systems, Indiana University School of Nursing, Indianapolis, Indiana. 7. Department of Biostatistics, Indiana University School of Medicine, Richard M. Fairbanks School of Public Health, Indianapolis, Indiana; Department of Psychology, Purdue School of Science, Indianapolis, Indiana. 8. Department of Science of Nursing Care, Indiana University School of Nursing, Indianapolis, Indiana.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Adherence to breast and colorectal cancer screenings reduce mortality from these cancers, yet screening rates remain suboptimal. This 2 × 2 RCT compared 3 theory-based interventions to usual care to simultaneously increase breast and colon cancer screening in women who were nonadherent to both screenings at study entry. DESIGN: RCT. SETTING/PARTICIPANTS: Women (n=692) who were nonadherent to both breast and colon cancer screenings and aged 51-75 years were recruited. Enrollment, intervention delivery, and data collection were completed between 2013 and 2017, and data analyzed in 2018. INTERVENTION: The randomized intervention included the following 4 groups: 3 intervention arms (personally tailored messages using a web-based intervention, phone delivery by a trained navigator, or both) compared with usual care. Women at an average risk for colon cancer were allowed to select either colonoscopy or stool test as their preferred colon cancer screening. Mammography was promoted for breast cancer screening. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Outcome data at 6 months included self-report and medical records for screening activity. RESULTS: All intervention arms significantly increased receipt of either a mammogram or stool test compared with control (web: p<0.0249, phone: p<0.0001, web + phone: p<0.0001). When considering receipt of both mammogram and stool test, all intervention arms were significantly different from usual care (web: p<0.0249, phone: p<0.0003, web + phone: p<0.0001). In addition, women who were adherent to mammography had a 4.5 times greater odds of becoming adherent to colonoscopy. CONCLUSIONS: The tailored intervention simultaneously supporting both breast and colon cancer screenings significantly improved rates of obtaining one of the screenings and increased receipt of both tests. TRIAL REGISTRATION: This study is registered with the clinical trials identifier NCT03279198 at www.clinicaltrials.gov.
INTRODUCTION: Adherence to breast and colorectal cancer screenings reduce mortality from these cancers, yet screening rates remain suboptimal. This 2 × 2 RCT compared 3 theory-based interventions to usual care to simultaneously increase breast and colon cancer screening in women who were nonadherent to both screenings at study entry. DESIGN: RCT. SETTING/PARTICIPANTS: Women (n=692) who were nonadherent to both breast and colon cancer screenings and aged 51-75 years were recruited. Enrollment, intervention delivery, and data collection were completed between 2013 and 2017, and data analyzed in 2018. INTERVENTION: The randomized intervention included the following 4 groups: 3 intervention arms (personally tailored messages using a web-based intervention, phone delivery by a trained navigator, or both) compared with usual care. Women at an average risk for colon cancer were allowed to select either colonoscopy or stool test as their preferred colon cancer screening. Mammography was promoted for breast cancer screening. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Outcome data at 6 months included self-report and medical records for screening activity. RESULTS: All intervention arms significantly increased receipt of either a mammogram or stool test compared with control (web: p<0.0249, phone: p<0.0001, web + phone: p<0.0001). When considering receipt of both mammogram and stool test, all intervention arms were significantly different from usual care (web: p<0.0249, phone: p<0.0003, web + phone: p<0.0001). In addition, women who were adherent to mammography had a 4.5 times greater odds of becoming adherent to colonoscopy. CONCLUSIONS: The tailored intervention simultaneously supporting both breast and colon cancer screenings significantly improved rates of obtaining one of the screenings and increased receipt of both tests. TRIAL REGISTRATION: This study is registered with the clinical trials identifier NCT03279198 at www.clinicaltrials.gov.
Authors: Usha Menon; Rhonda Belue; Stéphanie Wahab; Kathryn Rugen; Anita Y Kinney; Peter Maramaldi; Debra Wujcik; Laura A Szalacha Journal: Ann Behav Med Date: 2011-12
Authors: Debbie Saslow; Diane Solomon; Herschel W Lawson; Maureen Killackey; Shalini L Kulasingam; Joanna Cain; Francisco A R Garcia; Ann T Moriarty; Alan G Waxman; David C Wilbur; Nicolas Wentzensen; Levi S Downs; Mark Spitzer; Anna-Barbara Moscicki; Eduardo L Franco; Mark H Stoler; Mark Schiffman; Philip E Castle; Evan R Myers Journal: CA Cancer J Clin Date: 2012-03-14 Impact factor: 508.702
Authors: Anita Y Kinney; Watcharaporn Boonyasiriwat; Scott T Walters; Lisa M Pappas; Antoinette M Stroup; Marc D Schwartz; Sandra L Edwards; Amy Rogers; Wendy K Kohlmann; Kenneth M Boucher; Sally W Vernon; Rebecca G Simmons; Jan T Lowery; Kristina Flores; Charles L Wiggins; Deirdre A Hill; Randall W Burt; Marc S Williams; John C Higginbotham Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2014-01-21 Impact factor: 44.544
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: Sharon L Manne; Elliot J Coups; Arnold Markowitz; Neal J Meropol; Daniel Haller; Paul B Jacobsen; Lina Jandorf; Susan K Peterson; Samuel Lesko; Steven Pilipshen; Gary Winkel Journal: Ann Behav Med Date: 2009-04
Authors: Bernard Levin; David A Lieberman; Beth McFarland; Robert A Smith; Durado Brooks; Kimberly S Andrews; Chiranjeev Dash; Francis M Giardiello; Seth Glick; Theodore R Levin; Perry Pickhardt; Douglas K Rex; Alan Thorson; Sidney J Winawer Journal: CA Cancer J Clin Date: 2008-03-05 Impact factor: 508.702
Authors: Victoria L Champion; Susan M Rawl; Sara A Bourff; Kristen M Champion; Lisa G Smith; Adam H Buchanan; Laura J Fish; Patrick O Monahan; Timothy E Stump; Jeffery K Springston; Wambui G Gathirua-Mwangi; Celette Sugg Skinner Journal: J Health Psychol Date: 2014-07-28
Authors: Victoria L Champion; Patrick O Monahan; Timothy E Stump; Erika B Biederman; Eric Vachon; Mira L Katz; Susan M Rawl; Ryan D Baltic; Carla D Kettler; Natalie L Zaborski; Electra D Paskett Journal: Cancers (Basel) Date: 2022-09-07 Impact factor: 6.575
Authors: Danmeng Huang; David R Lairson; Tong H Chung; Patrick O Monahan; Susan M Rawl; Victoria L Champion Journal: Cancer Prev Res (Phila) Date: 2021-07-09