Impact of risk assessment and tailored versus non-tailored risk information on colorectal cancer testing in primary care: A randomized controlled trial

Cancer Epidemiology Biomarkers and Prevention

Volumn 24, Issue 10, 2015, Pages 1523-1530

  Skinner, Celette Sugg ^a,b   Halm, Ethan A ^a,b,c   Bishop, Wendy Pechero ^b   Ahn, Chul ^a,b   Gupta, Samir ^d   Farrell, David ^e   Morrow, Jay ^c   Julka, Manjula ^b   McCallister, Katharine ^b   Sanders, Joanne M ^b   Marks, Emily ^b   Rawl, Susan M ^f  

^a UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS SOUTHWESTERN MEDICAL CENTER   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS SOUTHWESTERN MEDICAL CENTER   (United States)

^c UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS SOUTHWESTERN MEDICAL CENTER   (United States)

^d UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA SAN DIEGO   (United States)

^e People Designs   (United States)

^f INDIANA UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF NURSING   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ADULT; AGED; ARTICLE; CANCER RISK; CANCER SCREENING; COLONOSCOPY; COLORECTAL CANCER; CONTROLLED STUDY; ELECTRONIC MEDICAL RECORD; ENDOSCOPY; FECES ANALYSIS; FEMALE; GROUPS BY AGE; HUMAN; INTERVENTION STUDY; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MALE; OUTCOME ASSESSMENT; PHYSICIAN; PRIMARY MEDICAL CARE; PRIORITY JOURNAL; RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIAL; RISK ASSESSMENT; COLORECTAL NEOPLASMS; EARLY CANCER DIAGNOSIS; ELECTRONIC HEALTH RECORD; MASS SCREENING; MIDDLE AGED; MORBIDITY; OCCULT BLOOD; PATIENT COMPLIANCE; PRIMARY HEALTH CARE; PROCEDURES; RISK FACTOR; UNITED STATES;

COLONOSCOPY; COLORECTAL NEOPLASMS; EARLY DETECTION OF CANCER; ELECTRONIC HEALTH RECORDS; FEMALE; HUMANS; MALE; MASS SCREENING; MIDDLE AGED; MORBIDITY; OCCULT BLOOD; PATIENT COMPLIANCE; PRIMARY HEALTH CARE; RISK ASSESSMENT; RISK FACTORS; UNITED STATES;

EID: 84942863329     PISSN: 10559965     EISSN: 15387755     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1158/1055-9965.EPI-15-0122     Document Type: Article

References (29)

1. Levin B, Lieberman DA, McFarland B, Andrews KS, Brooks D, Bond J, et al. Screening and surveillance for the early detection of colorectal cancer and adenomatous polyps, 2008: A joint guideline from the American Cancer Society, the US Multi-Society Task Force on Colorectal Cancer, and the American College of Radiology. Gastroenterology 2008;134:1570-95.
2. U.S. Preventive Services Task Force. Screening for colorectal cancer: U.S. preventive services task force recommendation statement. Ann Intern Med 2008;149:627-38.
3. Smith RA, Manassaram-Baptiste D, Brooks D, Cokkinides V, Doroshenk M, Saslow D, et al. Cancer screening in the United States, 2014: A review of current American Cancer Society guidelines and current issues in cancer screening. CA Cancer J Clin 2014;64:30-51.
4. Holden DJ, Jonas DE, Porterfield DS, Reuland D, Harris R. Systematic review: enhancing the use and quality of colorectal cancer screening. Ann Intern Med 2010;152:668-76.
5. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Use of colorectal cancer tests - United States, 2002, 2004, and 2006. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep 2008;57:253-8.
6. Dove-Edwin I, Sasieni P, Adams J, Thomas HJ. Prevention of colorectal cancer by colonoscopic surveillance in individuals with a family history of colorectal cancer: 16 year, prospective, follow-up study. BMJ 2005;331: 1047.
7. Acheson LS. Recording, interpreting, and updating the family history of cancer: implications for cancer prevention. JAMA 2011;306:208-10.
8. Winawer S, Fletcher R, Rex D, Bond J, Burt R, Ferrucci J, et al. Colorectal cancer screening and surveillance: clinical guidelines and rationale-Update based on new evidence. Gastroenterology 2003;124:544-60.
9. Welch BM, Dere W, Schiffman JD. Family health history: The case for better tools. JAMA 2015;313:1711-2.
10. Fisher WA, Fisher JD, Harman J. The information-motivation-behavioral skills model: Ageneral social psychological approach to understanding and promoting health behavior. In:Suls J, Wallston K, editors. Social Psychological Foundations of Health and Illness. Blackwell:Massuchessetts; 2003. p. 82-106.
11. U.S. Preventive Services Task Force. Screening for colorectal cancer: recommendation and rationale. Ann Intern Med 2002;137:129-31.
12. Lynch HT, Shaw TG, Lynch JF. Inherited predisposition to cancer: A historical overview. Am J Med Genet C Semin Med Genet 2004;129C: 5-22.
13. National Comprehensive Cancer Network. NCCN Guidelines Version 2.2012 Lynch Syndrome; 2012.
14. Junghans C, Feder G, Hemingway H, Timmis A, Jones M. Recruiting patients to medical research: double blind randomised trial of "opt-in" versus "opt-out" strategies. BMJ 2005;331:940.
15. Rawl SM, Skinner CS, Perkins SM, Springston J, Wang HL, Russell KM, et al. Computer-delivered tailored intervention improves colon cancer screening knowledge and health beliefs of African-Americans. Health Educ Res 2012;27:868-85.
16. Myers RE, Sifri R, Hyslop T, Rosenthal M, Vernon SW, Cocroft J, et al. A randomized controlled trial of the impact of targeted and tailored interventions on colorectal cancer screening. Cancer 2007;110: 2083-91.
17. Costanza ME, Luckmann R, Stoddard AM, White MJ, Stark JR, Avrunin JS, et al. Using tailored telephone counseling to accelerate the adoption of colorectal cancer screening. Cancer Detect Prev 2007;31: 191-8.
18. Menon U, Belue R, Wahab S, Rugen K, Kinney AY, Maramaldi P, et al. A randomized trial comparing the effect of two phone-based interventions on colorectal cancer screening adherence. Ann Behav Med 2011;42: 294-303.
19. Christy SM, Perkins SM, Tong Y, Krier C, Champion VL, Skinner CS, et al. Promoting colorectal cancer screening discussion: A randomized controlled trial. Am J Prev Med 2013;44:325-9.
20. Myers RE, Sifri R, Daskalakis C, DiCarlo M, Geethakumari PR, Cocroft J, et al. Increasing colon cancer screening in primary care among african americans. J Natl Cancer Inst 2014;106:pii: dju344.
21. Greiner KA, Daley CM, Epp A, James A, Yeh HW, Geana M, et al. Implementation intentions and colorectal screening: A randomized trial in safetynet clinics. Am J Prev Med 2014;47:703-14.
22. Lairson DR, DiCarlo M, Deshmuk AA, Fagan HB, Sifri R, Katurakes N, et al. Cost-effectiveness of a standard intervention versus a navigated intervention on colorectal cancer screening use in primary care. Cancer 2014;120: 1042-9.
23. Glenn BA, Bastani R, Maxwell AE. The perils of ignoring design effects in experimental studies: lessons from a mammography screening trial. Psychol Health 2013;28:593-602.
24. James L, Vo H. Hawthorne Effect. In:Salkind NJ, editor. Encyclopedia of Research Design. SAGE Publications, Inc.:Thousand Oaks, CA; 2010. p. 562-4.
25. Godin G, Sheeran P, Conner M, Germain M. Asking questions changes behavior: mere measurement effects on frequency of blood donation. Health Psychol 2008;27:179-84.
26. Champion VL, Rawl SM, Bourff SA, Champion KM, Smith LG, Buchanan AH, et al. Randomized trial of DVD, telephone, and usual care for increasing mammography adherence. J Health Psychol 2014 Jul 28. pii: 1359105314542817. (PMID:25070967) [Epub ahead of print].
27. Vernon SW, Bartholomew LK, McQueen A, Bettencourt JL, Greisinger A, Coan SP, et al. A randomized controlled trial of a tailored interactive computer-delivered intervention to promote colorectal cancer screening: Sometimes more is just the same. Ann Behav Med 2011;41:284-99.
28. Skinner CS, Rawl SM, Moser BK, Buchanan AH, Scott LL, Champion VL, et al. Impact of the Cancer Risk Intake System on patient-clinician discussions of tamoxifen, genetic counseling, and colonoscopy. J Gen Intern Med 2005;20:360-5.
29. Cunningham CJL, Weathington BL, Pittenger DJ. Correlated-Groups Designs. In:Cunningham CJL, Weathington BL, Pittenger DJ, editors. Understanding and Conducting Research in the Health Sciences. First ed. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.; 2013. p. 367-89.