ABSTRACT
To determine colorectal cancer (CRC) screening knowledge, attitudes, behaviors, and preferences for a future CRC screening educational intervention among adults (companions) waiting for outpatients undergoing a colonoscopy. We approached 384 companions at three endoscopy centers associated with one healthcare system to complete a survey from March to July 2017. The survey assessed CRC and CRC screening knowledge, attitudes, behaviors, and preferences for a future CRC screening educational intervention. There were 164 companions at average risk for CRC that completed a self-administered survey. Among average-risk companions, 23% were not within screening guidelines. Additionally, 74% of those not within guidelines reported that they had never completed a CRC screening test. The most frequently reported barriers to CRC screening were the perception of not needing screening because they were asymptomatic and lack of a provider recommendation for screening. Companions suggested that a future CRC screening intervention include a brochure and/or a brief video, featuring men and women from different races/ethnicities, a CRC survivor, and a healthcare professional. Almost one-fourth of average-risk companions waiting at endoscopy centers were not within CRC screening guidelines, providing a teachable moment to recruit companions to participate in an educational intervention to encourage screening. Companions provided suggestions (e.g., content and channel) for a future intervention to promote CRC screening in this population.
Subject(s)
Colorectal Neoplasms , Outpatients , Adult , Colonoscopy , Colorectal Neoplasms/diagnosis , Early Detection of Cancer , Female , Friends , Humans , MaleABSTRACT
Colorectal cancer (CRC) is commonly diagnosed in the USA despite screening tests that have decreased CRC incidence and mortality. Finding the best method to identify patient-level screening barriers is important to improve CRC screening rates. A group-randomized trial was conducted among ten primary-care clinics. Clinics were randomized to a multi-level (clinic, provider, patient) CRC screening intervention or usual care (2007-2013). Subsequent to clinic- and provider-level interventions, a three-step, patient-level intervention was conducted. One step of the patient-level intervention was a CRC screening barriers counseling call conducted by a lay health advisor (LHA). During the call, two methods were used to identify CRC screening barriers. An open-ended question was used first to determine why participants had not completed screening (without probes). Subsequently, the LHA read a list of additional potential screening barriers and asked participants whether each barrier was applicable (with probes). A generalized estimating equation approach was used to compare the two methods. Participants (n = 109) were female (59%), had a mean age of 57.2 years, and were white (67%) or black (31%). Most participants had some college education or a college degree (79%), annual household income $30,000+ (60%), and health insurance (80%). The number of CRC screening barriers increased with probing compared to the open-ended question format (OR 2.10, 95% CI 1.92-2.31; p < 0.01). The ranking of reported CRC screening barriers did not vary by assessment method. However, the methodology used to document CRC screening barriers may influence the content of patient-directed interventions.
Subject(s)
Colorectal Neoplasms/diagnosis , Early Detection of Cancer/methods , Age Factors , Aged , Counseling , Early Detection of Cancer/psychology , Female , Health Behavior , Humans , Male , Middle Aged , Patient Education as Topic/methods , Sex Factors , Socioeconomic FactorsABSTRACT
The purpose of this study is to provide process data from campaigns (2009-2010) to improve colorectal cancer (CRC; intervention) screening and fruit and vegetable (F&V; comparison) consumption in 12 Appalachian Ohio counties. County-specific campaigns included one billboard, posters, and articles for local newspapers. Participants in CRC screening counties who reported seeing CRC screening billboards had greater intention to talk to a doctor/nurse about screening in the next 6 months (odds ratio [OR] = 2.92, 95% confidence interval [CI; 1.71, 4.99]) and had twice the odds of talking to a doctor/nurse about screening in the past year (OR = 2.15, 95% CI [1.29, 3.60]) compared to those who did not see the billboards. Participants in F&V counties who reported seeing F&V billboards had twice the odds (OR = 2.27, 95% CI [1.35, 3.84]) of talking to a doctor/nurse in the past year about F&Vs compared to those who did not see the billboards. Participants who reported campaign exposure lived closer to the billboards compared to those who did not report campaign exposure (mean distance in miles from home to billboard: 8.8 vs. 10.9; p < .01). Most participants reported campaign messages were clear and important. Results suggest that partnering with community members to develop campaign materials is important to ensure cultural appropriateness and that exposure to the intervention components may affect health-related outcomes.
Subject(s)
Colorectal Neoplasms/diagnosis , Diet, Healthy , Early Detection of Cancer/psychology , Health Promotion/organization & administration , Mass Media , Aged , Appalachian Region , Female , Fruit , Humans , Intention , Male , Middle Aged , Odds Ratio , Ohio , Socioeconomic Factors , VegetablesABSTRACT
Cervical cancer (CC) incidence and mortality rates are increased, and CC screening rates are low among Appalachian Ohio women. Mailing human papillomavirus (HPV) self-tests to women to complete at home is a potential new strategy to engage women in CC screening. The authors aimed to gain insights into the perceived acceptability of mailed HPV self-tests. Focus groups were conducted (August 2014-January 2015) among providers (physicians, nurse practitioners, nurses) and women in Appalachian Ohio. Providers (n = 28) and women (n = 15; age range: 32-62 years) reported general acceptance of HPV self-tests, however, for different reasons. Providers thought HPV self-testing would increase the proportion of under-screened women returning to the health-care system, while women thought self-testing would eliminate logistical and reduce psychological CC screening barriers. Findings provide insights into facilitators and barriers of completing an HPV self-test at home, returning it, reporting results, and providing needed follow-up care. To the authors' knowledge, no systematic research exists addressing providers' views regarding women's use of HPV self-tests and the relation of such use to fostering subsequent Pap testing. This information will be useful in developing CC screening programs that include mailed HPV self-tests, as well as encouragement of follow-up Pap testing to meet existing CC screening guidelines.