No abstract

PURPOSE Colon cancer is the second leading cause of cancer death in the United States. Despite tests that can detect and enable removal of precancerous polyps, effectively preventing this disease, screening for colon cancer lags behind other cancer screening. The purpose of this study was to develop and test a community-based participatory approach to increase colon cancer screening.METHODS Using a community-based participatory research approach, the High Plains Research Network and their Community Advisory Council developed a multicomponent intervention-Testing to Prevent Colon Cancer-to increase colon cancer screening. A controlled trial compared 9 intervention counties in northeast Colorado with 7 control counties in southeast Colorado. We performed a baseline and postintervention random digit-dial telephone survey and conducted both intent-to-treat and on-treatment analyses. RESULTSIn all, 1,050 community members completed a preintervention questionnaire and 1,048 completed a postintervention questionnaire. During the study period, there was a 5% absolute increase in the proportion of respondents who reported ever having had any test in the intervention region (from 76% to 81%) compared with no increase in the control region (77% at both time points) (P = .22). No significant differences between these groups were found in terms of being up to date generally or on specific tests. The extent of exposure to intervention materials was associated with a significant and cumulative increase in screening.CONCLUSIONS This community-based multicomponent intervention engaged hundreds of community members in wide dissemination aimed at increasing colorectal cancer screening. Although we did not find any statistically significant differences, the findings are consistent with an intervention-related increase in screening and provide preliminary evidence on the effectiveness of such interventions to improve colon cancer screening.

Background: Blood pressure (BP) control among primary care patients with hypertension is suboptimal. Home BP monitoring (HBPM) has been shown to be effective but is underused.Methods: This study was a quasi-experimental evaluation of the impact of the A CARE HBPM program on hypertension control. Nonpregnant adults with hypertension or cardiovascular disease risk factors were given validated home BP monitors and reported monthly average home BP readings by Internet or phone. Patients and providers received feedback. Change in average home and office BP and the percentage of patients achieving target BP were assessed based on patient HBPM reports and a chart audit of office BPs.Results: A total of 3578 patients were enrolled at 26 urban and rural primary care practices. Of these, 36% of participants submitted >2 HBPM reports. These active participants submitted a mean of 13.5 average HBPM reports, with a mean of 19.3 BP readings per report. The mean difference in home BP between initial and final HBPM reports for active participants was ؊6.5/؊4.4 mmHg (P < .001) and ؊6.7/؊4.7 mmHg (P < .001) for those with diabetes. The percentage of active participants at or below target BP increased from 34.5% to 53.3% (P < .001) and increased 24.6% to 40.0% (P < .001) for those with diabetes. The mean difference in office BP over 1 year between participants and nonparticipants was ؊5.4/؊2.7 mmHg (P < .001 for systolic BP, P ‫؍‬ .01 for diastolic BP) for all participants and ؊8.5/؊1.5 mmHg (P ‫؍‬ .014 for systolic BP, P ‫؍‬ .405 for diastolic BP) for those with diabetes.Conclusions: An HBPM program with patient and provider feedback can be successfully implemented in a range of primary care practices and can play a significant role in BP control and decreased cardiovascular disease risk in patients with hypertension. (J Am Board Fam Med 2015;28:548 -555.)