Marriage and cancer prevention: Does marital status and inviting both spouses together influence colorectal cancer screening participation?

Jaarsveld, Cornelia H M van; Miles, Anne; Edwards, Rob; Wardle, Jane

doi:10.1177/096914130601300403

Cited by 95 publications

(76 citation statements)

References 22 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The sample size ranged from 39 couples (Burke et al ., 1999) to 3,839 (Øien, Storrø, Jenssen, & Johnsen, 2008). The studies were carried out in the USA (Cohen et al ., 1991; Lee et al ., 2014; Manne et al ., 2013; McBride et al ., 2004; Robinson, Turrisi, & Stapleton, 2007; Voils et al ., 2013; Wing, Marcus, Epstein, & Jawad, 1991), Australia (Burke, Giangiulio, Gillam, Beilin, & Houghton, 2003; Burke et al ., 1999), the United Kingdom (van Jaarsveld, Miles, Edwards, & Wardle, 2006), Israel (Benyamini, Ashery, & Shiloh, 2011), South Korea (Park, Song, Hur, & Kim, 2009), Germany (Gellert, Ziegelmann, Warner, & Schwarzer, 2011), and Norway (Øien et al ., 2008). …”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The interventions varied considerably in intensity, from an invitation to screening (van Jaarsveld et al ., 2006), to a 16‐week programme focusing on health behaviours (Burke et al ., 1999, 2003). Length of follow‐up varied from a single visit post‐intervention where measurements were taken (e.g., blood pressure, heart rate; Burke et al ., 1999) to 15 months (Lee et al ., 2014).…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In both, it was unclear whether the outcomes had been reported selectively. The two studies based on retrospective analysis of trial data (Gellert et al ., 2011; van Jaarsveld et al ., 2006) could not be assessed for risk of bias without reference to the original trial papers.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Retrospective analysis of trial data revealed that individuals were more likely to attend for colorectal cancer screening following two invitations by post if they were part of a couple where both members were invited (OR = 1.34; 95% CI 1.14–1.58; van Jaarsveld et al ., 2006). Similarly, an RCT of a couple‐based educational programme about breast screening for Korean Americans who had not had a mammogram in the past year led to increased uptake of mammograms at 6 months ( p < .001) and 15 months ( p = .004) relative to a couple‐based educational programme about having a healthy diet (Lee et al ., 2014).…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Two retrospective analyses of intervention studies showed individuals were more likely to participate in health behaviours with a partner than alone (Gellert et al ., 2011; van Jaarsveld et al ., 2006). Two trials (Burke et al ., 1999, 2003) of five comparing couple‐focused interventions to usual care showed couple‐focused interventions were significantly more effective than usual care in improving health outcomes for couples, and the other three (McBride et al ., 2004; Øien et al ., 2008; Voils et al ., 2013) found no effect of couple‐based interventions relative to usual care.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 4 more Smart Citations

Health behaviour change interventions for couples: A systematic review

Arden‐Close

McGrath

2017

British J Health Psychol

150

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

ObjectivesPartners are a significant influence on individuals’ health, and concordance in health behaviours increases over time in couples. Several theories suggest that couple‐focused interventions for health behaviour change may therefore be more effective than individual interventions.DesignA systematic review of health behaviour change interventions for couples was conducted.MethodsSystematic search methods identified randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and non‐randomized interventions of health behaviour change for couples with at least one member at risk of a chronic physical illness, published from 1990–2014.ResultsWe identified 14 studies, targeting the following health behaviours: cancer prevention (6), obesity (1), diet (2), smoking in pregnancy (2), physical activity (1) and multiple health behaviours (2). In four out of seven trials couple‐focused interventions were more effective than usual care. Of four RCTs comparing a couple‐focused intervention to an individual intervention, two found that the couple‐focused intervention was more effective.ConclusionsThe studies were heterogeneous, and included participants at risk of a variety of illnesses. In many cases the intervention was compared to usual care for an individual or an individual‐focused intervention, which meant the impact of the couplebased content could not be isolated. Three arm studies could determine whether any added benefits of couple‐focused interventions are due to adding the partner or specific content of couple‐focused interventions. Statement of contribution What is already known on this subject? Health behaviours and health behaviour change are more often concordant across couples than between individuals in the general population.Couple‐focused interventions for chronic conditions are more effective than individual interventions or usual care (Martire, Schulz, Helgeson, Small, & Saghafi, 2010). What does this study add? Identified studies targeted a variety of health behaviours, with few studies in any one area.Further assessment of the effectiveness of couple‐focused versus individual interventions for those at risk is needed.Three‐arm study designs are needed to determine benefits of targeting couples versus couple‐focused intervention content.

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Health behaviour change interventions for couples: A systematic review

Arden‐Close

McGrath

2017

British J Health Psychol

150

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Factors associated with adherence to colonoscopy among individuals who were positive in the preliminary screening for colorectal neoplasms

Wang

et al. 2022

Cancer Medicine

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objectives This study aimed to investigate the potential factors associated with adherence to colonoscopy among participants who were preliminarily screened positive in a community‐based colorectal cancer screening program in China. Methods This study analyzed data from 1219 out of 6971 community residents who were identified as positive cases by the well‐validated high‐risk factor questionnaire (HRFQ) or fecal immunochemical test (FIT) in the preliminary screening stage for colorectal neoplasms. Patients showing adherence to colonoscopy were defined as those who received positive results in a preliminary screening for colorectal neoplasms and later received a colonoscopy examination as required. The associations of social‐demographic factors, lifestyle behaviors, history of diabetes, body mass index (BMI), and risk factors in the HRFQ with adherence to colonoscopy were evaluated using logistic regression models. Results Among 1219 participants who preliminarily screened positive, the top five risk factors reported by the participants were chronic constipation (25.9%), hematochezia (23.5%), family history of CRC in first‐degree relatives (22.1%), chronic diarrhea (21.8%), and history of polyps (16.6%). Around 14.2% of participants who preliminarily screened positive reported three or more risk factors, and the proportion was 26.2% among participants who were positive according to both HRFQ and FIT. Among all participants who were preliminarily screened positive, the multivariable results showed that those who were married (OR = 1.58, 95% CI: 1.12, 2.25, p = 0.01), had chronic diarrhea (OR = 1.34, 95% CI: 1.00, 1.78, p = 0.047), and had a positive FIT (OR = 1.60, 95% CI: 1.21, 2.10, p < 0.001 for patients who were negative according to HRFQ but positive according to FIT; OR = 2.12, 95% CI: 1.33, 2.78, p = 0.002 for patients who were positive for both HRFQ and FIT) were more likely to adhere to colonoscopy, while participants with a history of cancer (OR: 0.50, 95% CI: 0.31, 0.79, p = 0.003) were less likely to adhere to colonoscopy. The results among participants who were tested positive according to only HRFQ were similar to those among all participants who were tested positive according to HRFQ or FIT. However, among participants who were tested positive according to only FIT, we only found that those who were married (OR = 2.52, 95% CI: 1.08, 5.90, p = 0.033) had a higher odds of adhering to colonoscopy, while those with a history of diabetes (OR = 0.35, 95% CI: 0.13, 0.96, p = 0.042) were less likely to adhere to colonoscopy. Conclusion Our findings provide evidence supporting the development of tailored interventional strategies that aim to improve adherence to colonoscopy for individuals with a high risk of colorectal neoplasms. Both barriers and facilitators associated with adherence to colonoscopy should be considered in supportive systems and health policies. However, further well‐designed prospective studies are warranted to confirm our findings.

show abstract

Adherence to cancer screening guidelines in Australian survivors of allogeneic blood and marrow transplantation (BMT)

Dyer

Larsen

Gilroy³

et al. 2016

Cancer Medicine

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Allogeneic Blood and Marrow Transplant (BMT) survivors are at high risk of secondary cancers. Although current guidelines endorse survivors following Country‐specific general population screening recommendations to mitigate this risk, little is known about cancer screening adherence in Australian BMT survivors. We conducted a cross‐sectional survey of 441 BMT survivors who were >1 year post transplant, to explore rates of screening for secondary cancers and to identify barriers to cancer screening recommendations. Survey instruments included the Sydney Post‐BMT Survey, FACT‐BMT, DASS 21, The Chronic Graft versus Host Disease (GVHD) Activity Assessment–Patient Self‐Report (Form B), the Lee Chronic GVHD Symptom Scale, Fear of Cancer Recurrence Scale, and The Post Traumatic Growth Inventory. Fifty‐seven percent of respondents were male, median age 54 years, and 40% were >6 years post‐BMT. Rates of cancer screening adherence were as follows: cervical 63.4%, breast 53.3%, skin 52.4%, and bowel 32.3%. Older BMT survivors and those >2 years post transplant were more likely to undergo cancer screening. Improved quality of life was associated with screening for skin, breast, and cervical cancer. Fear of cancer recurrence negatively impacted on cervical screening. For those who had not undergone screening, the majority reported not being advised to do so by their treatment team. This study is the largest and most comprehensive to date exploring cancer screening adherence in BMT survivors in Australia. These data provide the basis for health service reform to better meet the needs of BMT survivors and provide evidence to support counseling and education of both patients and professionals.

show abstract

Marriage and cancer prevention: Does marital status and inviting both spouses together influence colorectal cancer screening participation?

Cited by 95 publications

References 22 publications

Health behaviour change interventions for couples: A systematic review

Health behaviour change interventions for couples: A systematic review

Factors associated with adherence to colonoscopy among individuals who were positive in the preliminary screening for colorectal neoplasms

Adherence to cancer screening guidelines in Australian survivors of allogeneic blood and marrow transplantation (BMT)

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About