A randomized controlled trial of the impact of targeted and tailored interventions on colorectal cancer screening
- 18 October 2007
- Vol. 110 (9), 2083-2091
- https://doi.org/10.1002/cncr.23022
Abstract
BACKGROUND. Colorectal cancer screening is underutilized. The objective of the current study was to determine whether targeted and tailored interventions can increase screening use. METHODS. A total of 1546 primary care practice patients completed a baseline telephone survey and were randomized to 4 study groups: control (387 patients), Standard Intervention (SI) (387 patients), Tailored Intervention (TI) (386 patients), or Tailored Intervention plus Phone (TIP) (386 patients). The control group received usual care throughout the study. The SI group received a targeted intervention by mail (ie, screening invitation letter, informational booklet, stool blood test, and reminder letter). The TI group received the targeted intervention with tailored “message pages.” The TIP group received the targeted intervention, tailored message pages, and a telephone reminder. Intervention group contacts were repeated 1 year later. Screening was assessed 24 months after randomization. RESULTS. Screening rates in study groups were 33% in the control group, 46% in the SI group, 44% in the TI group, and 48% in the TIP group. Screening was found to be significantly higher in all 3 intervention groups compared with the control group (odds ratio [OR] of 1.7 [95% confidence interval (95% CI), 1.3–2.5], OR of 1.6 [95% CI, 1.2–2.1], and OR of 1.9 [95% CI, 1.4–2.6], respectively), but did not vary significantly across intervention groups. Multivariate analyses demonstrated that older age, education, past cancer screening, screening preference, response efficacy, social support and influence, and exposure to study interventions were positive predictors of screening. Having worries and concerns about screening was found to be a significant negative predictor. CONCLUSIONS. Targeted and tailored interventions were found to increase colorectal cancer screening use. However, additional research is needed to determine how to increase the effect of such interventions in primary care. Cancer 2007. © 2007 American Cancer Society.Keywords
This publication has 37 references indexed in Scilit:
- Telephone Outreach to Increase Colorectal Cancer Screening in an Urban Minority PopulationAmerican Journal of Public Health, 2006
- What is the Concordance Between the Medical Record and Patient Self-Report as Data Sources for Ambulatory Care?Medical Care, 2006
- Colorectal Cancer Screening Among African-American and White Male VeteransAmerican Journal of Preventive Medicine, 2005
- Increasing colorectal cancer screening among individuals in the carpentry trade: test of risk communication interventionsPreventive Medicine, 2005
- Do benefits and barriers differ by stage of adoption for colorectal cancer screening?Health Education Research, 2004
- Colorectal cancer screening and surveillance: Clinical guidelines and rationale?Update based on new evidenceGastroenterology, 2003
- A Comparison of Colonoscopy and Double-Contrast Barium Enema for Surveillance after PolypectomyNew England Journal of Medicine, 2000
- Randomised study of screening for colorectal cancer with faecal-occult-blood testThe Lancet, 1996
- Randomised controlled trial of faecal-occult-blood screening for colorectal cancerThe Lancet, 1996
- Concordance of Self-reported Data and Medical Record Audit for Six Cancer Screening ProceduresJNCI Journal of the National Cancer Institute, 1993