Longitudinal predictors of colorectal cancer screening among participants in a randomized controlled trial

Murphy, Caitlin C.; Vernon, Sally W.; Haddock, Nicole; Anderson, Melissa L.; Chubak, Jessica; Green, Beverly B.

doi:10.1016/j.ypmed.2014.06.013

Cited by 28 publications

(42 citation statements)

References 48 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Several international studies into CRC screening suggest a generally positive view towards CRC screening as well [24–30]. It seems that most people believe that preventive screening for colorectal cancer is a good idea [24, 25, 28–30], important to do [27, 28] and saves lives [29, 30]. The majority of these studies, though, only studied the eligible screening population within the direct context of individual participation.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Dutch public are positive about the colorectal cancer-screening programme, but is this a well-informed opinion?

2016

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BackgroundPopulation-based colorectal cancer (CRC) screening is widely recommended, and members of the eligible screening population seem to be positive about it. However, it is not well known how people outside the eligible screening population view CRC screening, and whether they are supportive of the government providing this. Public opinion may affect people’s personal views and their screening decision.The aim of our study was to examine the opinion of the Dutch general public regarding the national CRC screening programme.MethodAn online survey was carried out in a Dutch population sample of adults aged 18 and older, assessing level of support, personal attitude, collective attitude, perceived social norm, awareness, and knowledge regarding the CRC screening programme.ResultsThe response rate was 56% (n = 1679/3000). Generally, the Dutch public are positive about and supportive of the CRC screening programme. We found the biggest proportion of support (86%) when people were asked directly. A smaller proportion (48%) was supportive when people had to choose between other options concerning how the government could possibly deal with CRC. People report knowing more about the benefits of CRC screening than about its possible harms and risks. Many people found it difficult to answer the knowledge questions that asked about numerical information concerning CRC screening correctly.ConclusionPeople were less supportive of the CRC screening programme when having to choose between other options concerning dealing with CRC, and their support may not be based on a full comprehension of what CRC screening entails. Further research is needed to establish what knowledge people need in order to form a well-founded opinion.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s12889-016-3870-7) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Dutch public are positive about the colorectal cancer-screening programme, but is this a well-informed opinion?

2016

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…According to the PHM, CRC screening completion is mediated by an individual's beliefs about the pros and cons of screening and specific tests, perceived risk for CRC, social influence (such as a doctor's or family member's recommendation), selfefficacy for completing testing, and prior testing experience. However, in analysis of surveys conducted pre randomization and post year 2 interventions, we found that the only PHM constructs that predicted screening were prior completion of CRC tests and self-efficacy [13]. The strongest predictor of CRC screening initiation and repeat testing was receiving active interventions.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 78%

“…In a prior study we reported predictors of uptake and repeating CRC screening on a subset of participants in the SOS study who completed a survey at baseline and at 2 years [13]. The survey included questions on pros and cons of different screening tests, perceived risk, social influence, and self-efficacy to complete screening tests.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Reasons for Never and Intermittent Completion of Colorectal Cancer Screening After Receiving Multiple Rounds of Mailed Fecal Tests

Green¹,

BlueSpruce²,

Tuzzio³

et al. 2017

Journal of Patient-Centered Research and Reviews

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: Long-term adherence to colorectal cancer (CRC) screening is particularly important for fecal testing. Some U.S. studies report that only 25% of individuals repeat fecal testing annually. The purpose of this qualitative study was to identify barriers and facilitators reported by patients with suboptimal screening adherence to refine interventions for starting ongoing adherence to CRC screening. We also explored whether participants, particularly never screeners, would be willing to do a CRC screening blood test. Methods: Forty-one patients who previously enrolled in the Systems of Support to Increase CRC Screening (SOS) trial were interviewed 4-5 years later. Participants were purposively selected to include men and women with diverse race/ethnicities who had either been inconsistent screeners or had never screened during the first three years of SOS despite receiving at least two rounds of mailed fecal tests. Two interviewers conducted 30-min telephone interviews using a semi-structured interview guide. An iterative thematic analysis approach was used. Results: Themes related to screening barriers were more pervasive among never screeners including: (1) Avoidance (inattention, procrastination) (2) Concerns about handling stool; (3) Health concerns; (4) Fear of a cancer diagnosis or positive test results. Themes related to screening facilitators were more often mentioned by participants who screened at least once including: (1) Use of a simpler 1-sample fecal test; (2) Convenience of mailings and doing the test at home; (3) Salience of prevention, especially as one got older; and (4) Influence of recommendations from providers, family and friends. Participants had diverse preferences for the number (3 on average) and types (phone, mail, text) of screening reminders. Some participants did not prefer e-mail links to the patient shared electronic health record because of difficulties remembering their password. It was acceptable for a nurse or medical assistant not from their clinic to call them as long as that person was knowledgeable about their records and could communicate with their physician. Participants, especially never screeners, were generally very enthusiastic about the potential option of a CRC screening blood test.

show abstract

“…We expected screening mammography adherence to be related to a woman’s up-to-date status 23,24 and age; 21 therefore, all analyses were stratified by adherence with last mammography recommendation and age (40–49, 50–69 and 70–74 years). Up-to-date letters (N=143,564) were sent to women who had a screening mammogram in the previous 12–24 months.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Breast cancer screening outreach effectiveness: Mammogram-specific reminders vs. comprehensive preventive services birthday letters

Buist

Gao

Anderson

et al. 2017

Preventive Medicine

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

We compared the effectiveness of two outreach strategies on timely mammography adherence: a mammogram-specific reminder letter (sent just before a woman was due) to a birthday letter (addresses multiple preventive services and not timed around due dates). We evaluated screening mammography adherence following 79,848 mammogram-specific and 151,626 birthday letters mailed between 2002–2012 to women aged 40–74 years enrolled in Kaiser Permanente Washington. Screening mammogram adherence was specifically tied to due-date and was evaluated separately by age group and up-to-date or overdue status at the time of mailing. We used generalized estimating equations to account for correlation between repeated observations, to model the odds of screening mammography adherence by letter type. Among women up-to-date, adherence following birthday letters was 22–76% lower compared to the mammogram-specific reminders, with the greatest decreases in adherence in women aged 70–74. Birthday letters were more effective at activating screening uptake among some subgroups of overdue women aged 50–69 and most overdue women aged 70–74, but universally low adherence rates were observed in overdue women. Increasing number of recommended services for women aged 50–74 who were up-to-date resulted in 12–17% lower mammography adherence, but had no effect in women aged 40–49 or in overdue women. Birthday letters are less effective than mammogram-specific reminder letters at prompting women to undergo timely breast cancer screening, particularly among women up-to-date with screening. Birthday letters may be effective at increasing overall preventive care; however, supplemental outreach may be needed around the due date to increase timely preventive services receipt.

show abstract

Longitudinal predictors of colorectal cancer screening among participants in a randomized controlled trial

Cited by 28 publications

References 48 publications

The Dutch public are positive about the colorectal cancer-screening programme, but is this a well-informed opinion?

The Dutch public are positive about the colorectal cancer-screening programme, but is this a well-informed opinion?

Reasons for Never and Intermittent Completion of Colorectal Cancer Screening After Receiving Multiple Rounds of Mailed Fecal Tests

Breast cancer screening outreach effectiveness: Mammogram-specific reminders vs. comprehensive preventive services birthday letters

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About