Adebola Adegboyega1, Mollie Aleshire, Amanda T Wiggins, Kelly Palmer, Jennifer Hatcher. 1. Author Affiliations: University of Kentucky College of Nursing, Lexington (Drs Adegboyega and Wiggins); University of Louisville School of Nursing, Kentucky (Dr Aleshire); and University of Arizona Mel and Enid Zuckerman College of Public Health, Phoenix (Ms Palmer and Dr Hatcher).
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Appalachian Kentuckians suffer a disproportionate incidence and mortality from colorectal cancer (CRC) and are screened at lower rates (35%) compared with 47% of Kentuckians. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to evaluate the efficacy of a motivational interviewing intervention delivered by trained Lay Health Advisors on CRC screening. METHOD: Eligible participants recruited from an emergency department (ED) completed a baseline survey and were randomized to either the control or the motivational interviewing intervention provided by Lay Health Advisors. Follow-up surveys were administered 3 and 6 months after baseline. To evaluate potential differences in treatment and control groups, t tests, χ2, and Mann-Whitney U tests were used. RESULTS: At either the 3- or 6-month assessment, there was no difference in the CRC screening by group (χ2 = 0.13, P = .72). There was a significant main effect for the study group in the susceptibility to CRC model; regardless of time, those in the intervention group reported approximately 1-point higher perceived susceptibility to CRC, compared with controls (est. b = 0.68, P = .038). Age and financial adequacy had a significant effect related to CRC screening. Older participants (est. b = 0.09, P = .014) and those who reported financial inadequacy (est. b = 2.34, P = .002) reported more screening barriers. CONCLUSION: This pilot study elucidated important factors influencing the uptake of CRC for an ED transient population and this may be useful in the design of future interventions using motivational interviewing in EDs. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: Nurses can provide information about CRC screening guidelines and provide referrals to appropriate screening resources in the community.
BACKGROUND: Appalachian Kentuckians suffer a disproportionate incidence and mortality from colorectal cancer (CRC) and are screened at lower rates (35%) compared with 47% of Kentuckians. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to evaluate the efficacy of a motivational interviewing intervention delivered by trained Lay Health Advisors on CRC screening. METHOD: Eligible participants recruited from an emergency department (ED) completed a baseline survey and were randomized to either the control or the motivational interviewing intervention provided by Lay Health Advisors. Follow-up surveys were administered 3 and 6 months after baseline. To evaluate potential differences in treatment and control groups, t tests, χ2, and Mann-Whitney U tests were used. RESULTS: At either the 3- or 6-month assessment, there was no difference in the CRC screening by group (χ2 = 0.13, P = .72). There was a significant main effect for the study group in the susceptibility to CRC model; regardless of time, those in the intervention group reported approximately 1-point higher perceived susceptibility to CRC, compared with controls (est. b = 0.68, P = .038). Age and financial adequacy had a significant effect related to CRC screening. Older participants (est. b = 0.09, P = .014) and those who reported financial inadequacy (est. b = 2.34, P = .002) reported more screening barriers. CONCLUSION: This pilot study elucidated important factors influencing the uptake of CRC for an ED transient population and this may be useful in the design of future interventions using motivational interviewing in EDs. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: Nurses can provide information about CRC screening guidelines and provide referrals to appropriate screening resources in the community.
Authors: Ethan A Halm; Elisabeth F Beaber; Dale McLerran; Jessica Chubak; Douglas A Corley; Carolyn M Rutter; Chyke A Doubeni; Jennifer S Haas; Bijal A Balasubramanian Journal: J Gen Intern Med Date: 2016-06-08 Impact factor: 5.128
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: Debra J Holden; Daniel E Jonas; Deborah S Porterfield; Daniel Reuland; Russell Harris Journal: Ann Intern Med Date: 2010-04-13 Impact factor: 25.391
Authors: Øyvind Holme; Magnus Løberg; Mette Kalager; Michael Bretthauer; Miguel A Hernán; Eline Aas; Tor J Eide; Eva Skovlund; Jørn Schneede; Kjell Magne Tveit; Geir Hoff Journal: JAMA Date: 2014-08-13 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Katherine B Roland; Erin L Milliken; Elizabeth A Rohan; Amy DeGroff; Susan White; Stephanie Melillo; William E Rorie; Carmita-Anita C Signes; Paul A Young Journal: Health Equity Date: 2017-05-01
Authors: Novia Niannian Long; Michele Petrova Xin Ling Lau; Ainsley Ryan Yan Bin Lee; Natalie Elizabeth Yam; Nicholas Ye Kai Koh; Cyrus Su Hui Ho Journal: Front Med (Lausanne) Date: 2022-04-26