Telephone Outreach to Increase Colorectal Cancer Screening in an Urban Minority Population

Basch, Charles E.; Wolf, Randi L.; Brouse, Corey H.; Shmukler, Celia; Neugut, Alfred I.; DeCarlo, Lawrence T.; Shea, Steven

doi:10.2105/ajph.2005.067223

Cited by 93 publications

(100 citation statements)

References 84 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…37 Another telephone outreach program among predominately African-Americans in metropolitan New York also showed benefit. 50 However, the study population was limited to patients with current employment and health insurance, and is thus less generalizable to low income populations such as the patients in our study. In addition, our study showed that patients with in-person contact with the navigator were more likely to have CRC screening, especially colonoscopy, than patients with only phone contact.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

A Culturally Tailored Navigator Program for Colorectal Cancer Screening in a Community Health Center: A Randomized, Controlled Trial

et al. 2008

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

A Culturally Tailored Navigator Program for Colorectal Cancer Screening in a Community Health Center: A Randomized, Controlled Trial

et al. 2008

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…33,34 However, both targeted and tailored interventions have been reported to have significant effects in population subgroups. [35][36][37] In relation to intervention tailoring, it would be worthwhile to explore the impact of delivering messages related to factors that affect screening use. 38 Exploring the impact of messages tailored to CRC screening preference is of particular interest.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

A randomized controlled trial of the impact of targeted and tailored interventions on colorectal cancer screening

Myers

Sifri

Hyslop

et al. 2007

Cancer

206

211

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

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.

show abstract

“…In previous studies on CRC screening intervention, higher attendance was achieved by some intervention practices such as health-care-provider-directed intervention [19] , telephone support [20,21] , psychoeducational intervention [22,23] , tailored guidance [24,25] , patient-physician communication [26] , motivational interviewing [27] , physician reminder [28,29] , community volunteers [30] , and mailed brochure [31] . However, one-sided intervention methods may not achieve a satisfactory effect among nonadherent high-risk subjects.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Barrier-focused intervention to increase colonoscopy attendance among nonadherent high-risk populations

Meng¹,

Bi²,

Bai³

et al. 2009

WJG

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

AIM:To increase attendance for colonoscopy among nonadherent high-risk individuals for colorectal cancer (CRC) screening in China. METHODS:During the first 12 mo without intervention, only 428 of the 2398 high-risk subjects attended a scheduled colonoscopy examination. The 1970 subjects who did not attend for CRC screening were enrolled in the present study. Prior barrier investigation was performed to ascertain the reasons for nonadherence. A barrier-focused intervention program was then established and implemented among eligible nonadherent subjects by telephone interviews and on-site consultations. The completion rates of colonoscopy during the first 12 mo without intervention and the second 12 mo with intervention were compared. Variations in the effect of the intervention on some high-risk factors and barrier characteristics were analyzed using logistic regression.RESULTS: 540 subjects who were not eligible were excluded from the study. The colonoscopy attendance rate was 23.04% (428/1858) during the first 12 mo without intervention, and 37.69% (539/1430) during the second 12 mo with intervention (P < 0.001). Logistic regression analysis showed that the intervention was more effective among subjects with only objective barriers (OR: 34.590, 95% CI: 23.204-51.563) or subjects with some specific highrisk characteristics: first-degree relatives diagnosed with CRC (OR: 1.778, 95% CI: 1.010-3.131), personal history of intestinal polyps (OR: 3.815, 95% CI: 1.994-7.300) and positive result for immunochemical fecal occult blood testing (OR: 2.718, 95% CI: 1.479-4.996). CONCLUSION:The barrier-focused telephone or onsite consultation intervention appears to be a feasible means to improve colonoscopy attendance among nonadherent high-risk subjects for CRC screening in China.

show abstract

Telephone Outreach to Increase Colorectal Cancer Screening in an Urban Minority Population

Abstract: Tailored telephone outreach can increase CRC screening in an urban minority population.

Cited by 93 publications

References 84 publications

A Culturally Tailored Navigator Program for Colorectal Cancer Screening in a Community Health Center: A Randomized, Controlled Trial

A Culturally Tailored Navigator Program for Colorectal Cancer Screening in a Community Health Center: A Randomized, Controlled Trial

A randomized controlled trial of the impact of targeted and tailored interventions on colorectal cancer screening

Barrier-focused intervention to increase colonoscopy attendance among nonadherent high-risk populations

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About