Division of General Internal Medicine, Department of Medicine, University of California at San Francisco, 1600 Divisadero Street San Francisco, CA 94115, USA, UCSF Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, 185 Berry Street, San Francisco, CA 94107, USA and Department of Family and Community Medicine, University of California at San Francisco, 505 Parnassus Avenue, San Francisco, CA 94143, USA.
The objective of the study was to determine the extent to which the FLU-FOBT Program, a colorectal cancer screening (CRCS) intervention linking the provision of fecal occult blood tests (FOBT) to the time of annual influenza vaccination, resulted in practice changes in six primary care clinics 1 year after it was introduced in a randomized controlled trial (RCT). We assessed CRCS rate changes for influenza vaccine recipients, administered brief serial clinic staff surveys and interviewed clinic leaders 1 year after the RCT. CRCS rates for influenza vaccination recipients between the ages of 50 and 75 years were 42.5% before the RCT, 54.5% immediately after the RCT and 55.8% 1 year after the RCT (P < 0.001 for difference between baseline and 1 year after RCT). Many FLU-FOBT Program components were maintained in most clinics at 1-year follow-up. Only 63% of clinic staff survey respondents (26 of 41) continued offering FOBT with influenza vaccines, but 85% (35 of 41) continued to provide mailing kits with FOBT. Many patient education materials were maintained and staff satisfaction with the intervention remained high. Clinic leaders acknowledged barriers to maintenance but also observed several beneficial practice changes. Many components of the FLU-FOBT Program were maintained, with beneficial outcomes for participating practices.
[Show abstract][Hide abstract] ABSTRACT: Research has identified several communication strategies that could increase adherence to colorectal cancer screening recommendations. Two promising strategies are tailoring and narrative-based approaches. Tailoring is the personalization of information based on individual characteristics. Narrative-based approaches use stories about similar others to counter perceived barriers and cultivate self-efficacy. To compare these two approaches, a randomized controlled trial was carried out at 8 worksites in Indiana. Adults 50 -75 (N = 210) received one of four messages about colorectal cancer screening: stock, narrative, tailored, tailored narrative. The primary outcome was whether participants filed a colonoscopy claim in the 18 months following the intervention. Individuals receiving narrative messages were 4 times more likely to screen than those not receiving narrative messages. Tailoring did not increase screening behavior overall. However, individuals with higher cancer information overload were 8 times more likely to screen if they received tailored messages. The results suggest that narrative-based approaches are more effective than tailoring at increasing colorectal cancer screening in worksite interventions. Tailoring may be valuable as a strategy for reaching individuals with high overload, perhaps as a follow-up effort to a larger communication campaign.
Social Science [?] Medicine 03/2014; 104:31-40. DOI:10.1016/j.socscimed.2013.12.003 · 2.89 Impact Factor
[Show abstract][Hide abstract] ABSTRACT: Fecal immunochemical tests for hemoglobin (FIT) are changing the manner in which colorectal cancer (CRC) is screened. Although these tests are being performed worldwide, why is this test different from its predecessors? What evidence supports its adoption? How can this evidence best be used? This review addresses these questions and provides an understanding of FIT theory and practices to expedite international efforts to implement the use of FIT in CRC screening.
Gut and Liver 03/2014; 8(2):117-130. DOI:10.5009/gnl.2014.8.2.117 · 1.81 Impact Factor
Data provided are for informational purposes only. Although carefully collected, accuracy cannot be guaranteed. The impact factor represents a rough estimation of the journal's impact factor and does not reflect the actual current impact factor. Publisher conditions are provided by RoMEO. Differing provisions from the publisher's actual policy or licence agreement may be applicable.