Promoting colorectal cancer screening discussion

A randomized controlled trial

Shannon M. Christy, Susan Perkins, Yan Tong, Connie Krier, Victoria Champion, Celette Sugg Skinner, Jeffrey K. Springston, Thomas Imperiale, Susan Rawl

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

32 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Background: Provider recommendation is a predictor of colorectal cancer (CRC) screening. Purpose: To compare the effects of two clinic-based interventions on patient-provider discussions about CRC screening. Design: Two-group RCT with data collected at baseline and 1 week post-intervention. Setting/participants: African-American patients that were non-adherent toCRCscreening recommendations (n693) with a primary care visit between 2008 and 2010 in one of 11 urban primary care clinics. Intervention: Participants received either a computer-delivered tailoredCRCscreening intervention or a nontailored informational brochure aboutCRCscreening immediately prior to their primary care visit. Main outcome measures: Between-group differences in odds of having had a CRC screening discussion about a colon test, with and without adjusting for demographic, clinic, health literacy, health belief, and social support variables, were examined as predictors of a CRC screening discussion using logistic regression. Intervention effects onCRCscreening test order by PCPs were examined using logistic regression. Analyses were conducted in 2011 and 2012. Results: Compared to the brochure group, greater proportions of those in the computer-delivered tailored intervention group reported having had a discussion with their provider about CRC screening (63% vs 48%, OR1.81, p>0.001). Predictors of a discussion about CRC screening included computer group participation, younger age, reason for visit, being unmarried, colonoscopy self-efficacy, and family member/friend recommendation (all p-values>0.05). Conclusions: The computer-delivered tailored intervention was more effective than a nontailored brochure at stimulating patient-provider discussions about CRC screening. Those who received the computer-delivered intervention also weremorelikely to have aCRCscreening test (fecal occult blood test or colonoscopy) ordered by their PCP.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)325-329
Number of pages5
JournalAmerican Journal of Preventive Medicine
Volume44
Issue number4
DOIs
StatePublished - Apr 2013

Fingerprint

Early Detection of Cancer
Colorectal Neoplasms
Randomized Controlled Trials
Pamphlets
Primary Health Care
Colonoscopy
Logistic Models
Health Literacy
Occult Blood
Hematologic Tests
Self Efficacy
Social Support
African Americans
Colon
Demography
Outcome Assessment (Health Care)
Health

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health
  • Epidemiology

Cite this

Promoting colorectal cancer screening discussion : A randomized controlled trial. / Christy, Shannon M.; Perkins, Susan; Tong, Yan; Krier, Connie; Champion, Victoria; Skinner, Celette Sugg; Springston, Jeffrey K.; Imperiale, Thomas; Rawl, Susan.

In: American Journal of Preventive Medicine, Vol. 44, No. 4, 04.2013, p. 325-329.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Christy, Shannon M. ; Perkins, Susan ; Tong, Yan ; Krier, Connie ; Champion, Victoria ; Skinner, Celette Sugg ; Springston, Jeffrey K. ; Imperiale, Thomas ; Rawl, Susan. / Promoting colorectal cancer screening discussion : A randomized controlled trial. In: American Journal of Preventive Medicine. 2013 ; Vol. 44, No. 4. pp. 325-329.
@article{7b111976f9864b74bc84298223f9cb9f,
title = "Promoting colorectal cancer screening discussion: A randomized controlled trial",
abstract = "Background: Provider recommendation is a predictor of colorectal cancer (CRC) screening. Purpose: To compare the effects of two clinic-based interventions on patient-provider discussions about CRC screening. Design: Two-group RCT with data collected at baseline and 1 week post-intervention. Setting/participants: African-American patients that were non-adherent toCRCscreening recommendations (n693) with a primary care visit between 2008 and 2010 in one of 11 urban primary care clinics. Intervention: Participants received either a computer-delivered tailoredCRCscreening intervention or a nontailored informational brochure aboutCRCscreening immediately prior to their primary care visit. Main outcome measures: Between-group differences in odds of having had a CRC screening discussion about a colon test, with and without adjusting for demographic, clinic, health literacy, health belief, and social support variables, were examined as predictors of a CRC screening discussion using logistic regression. Intervention effects onCRCscreening test order by PCPs were examined using logistic regression. Analyses were conducted in 2011 and 2012. Results: Compared to the brochure group, greater proportions of those in the computer-delivered tailored intervention group reported having had a discussion with their provider about CRC screening (63{\%} vs 48{\%}, OR1.81, p>0.001). Predictors of a discussion about CRC screening included computer group participation, younger age, reason for visit, being unmarried, colonoscopy self-efficacy, and family member/friend recommendation (all p-values>0.05). Conclusions: The computer-delivered tailored intervention was more effective than a nontailored brochure at stimulating patient-provider discussions about CRC screening. Those who received the computer-delivered intervention also weremorelikely to have aCRCscreening test (fecal occult blood test or colonoscopy) ordered by their PCP.",
author = "Christy, {Shannon M.} and Susan Perkins and Yan Tong and Connie Krier and Victoria Champion and Skinner, {Celette Sugg} and Springston, {Jeffrey K.} and Thomas Imperiale and Susan Rawl",
year = "2013",
month = "4",
doi = "10.1016/j.amepre.2012.11.032",
language = "English",
volume = "44",
pages = "325--329",
journal = "American Journal of Preventive Medicine",
issn = "0749-3797",
publisher = "Elsevier Inc.",
number = "4",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Promoting colorectal cancer screening discussion

T2 - A randomized controlled trial

AU - Christy, Shannon M.

AU - Perkins, Susan

AU - Tong, Yan

AU - Krier, Connie

AU - Champion, Victoria

AU - Skinner, Celette Sugg

AU - Springston, Jeffrey K.

AU - Imperiale, Thomas

AU - Rawl, Susan

PY - 2013/4

Y1 - 2013/4

N2 - Background: Provider recommendation is a predictor of colorectal cancer (CRC) screening. Purpose: To compare the effects of two clinic-based interventions on patient-provider discussions about CRC screening. Design: Two-group RCT with data collected at baseline and 1 week post-intervention. Setting/participants: African-American patients that were non-adherent toCRCscreening recommendations (n693) with a primary care visit between 2008 and 2010 in one of 11 urban primary care clinics. Intervention: Participants received either a computer-delivered tailoredCRCscreening intervention or a nontailored informational brochure aboutCRCscreening immediately prior to their primary care visit. Main outcome measures: Between-group differences in odds of having had a CRC screening discussion about a colon test, with and without adjusting for demographic, clinic, health literacy, health belief, and social support variables, were examined as predictors of a CRC screening discussion using logistic regression. Intervention effects onCRCscreening test order by PCPs were examined using logistic regression. Analyses were conducted in 2011 and 2012. Results: Compared to the brochure group, greater proportions of those in the computer-delivered tailored intervention group reported having had a discussion with their provider about CRC screening (63% vs 48%, OR1.81, p>0.001). Predictors of a discussion about CRC screening included computer group participation, younger age, reason for visit, being unmarried, colonoscopy self-efficacy, and family member/friend recommendation (all p-values>0.05). Conclusions: The computer-delivered tailored intervention was more effective than a nontailored brochure at stimulating patient-provider discussions about CRC screening. Those who received the computer-delivered intervention also weremorelikely to have aCRCscreening test (fecal occult blood test or colonoscopy) ordered by their PCP.

AB - Background: Provider recommendation is a predictor of colorectal cancer (CRC) screening. Purpose: To compare the effects of two clinic-based interventions on patient-provider discussions about CRC screening. Design: Two-group RCT with data collected at baseline and 1 week post-intervention. Setting/participants: African-American patients that were non-adherent toCRCscreening recommendations (n693) with a primary care visit between 2008 and 2010 in one of 11 urban primary care clinics. Intervention: Participants received either a computer-delivered tailoredCRCscreening intervention or a nontailored informational brochure aboutCRCscreening immediately prior to their primary care visit. Main outcome measures: Between-group differences in odds of having had a CRC screening discussion about a colon test, with and without adjusting for demographic, clinic, health literacy, health belief, and social support variables, were examined as predictors of a CRC screening discussion using logistic regression. Intervention effects onCRCscreening test order by PCPs were examined using logistic regression. Analyses were conducted in 2011 and 2012. Results: Compared to the brochure group, greater proportions of those in the computer-delivered tailored intervention group reported having had a discussion with their provider about CRC screening (63% vs 48%, OR1.81, p>0.001). Predictors of a discussion about CRC screening included computer group participation, younger age, reason for visit, being unmarried, colonoscopy self-efficacy, and family member/friend recommendation (all p-values>0.05). Conclusions: The computer-delivered tailored intervention was more effective than a nontailored brochure at stimulating patient-provider discussions about CRC screening. Those who received the computer-delivered intervention also weremorelikely to have aCRCscreening test (fecal occult blood test or colonoscopy) ordered by their PCP.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84884196182&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84884196182&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1016/j.amepre.2012.11.032

DO - 10.1016/j.amepre.2012.11.032

M3 - Article

VL - 44

SP - 325

EP - 329

JO - American Journal of Preventive Medicine

JF - American Journal of Preventive Medicine

SN - 0749-3797

IS - 4

ER -