Testing to Prevent Colon Cancer: Results From a Rural Community Intervention

Department of Family Medicine, University of Colorado Denver School of Medicine, Aurora, Colorado.
The Annals of Family Medicine (Impact Factor: 5.43). 11/2013; 11(6):500-7. DOI: 10.1370/afm.1582
Source: PubMed


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.

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.

In 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.

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.

3 Reads
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Participatory research can elevate research relevance and effectiveness. The literature contains few first-hand descriptions of community members engaged in research. In 2003, the High Plains Research Network convened a Community Advisory Council (CAC) that quickly began providing input, feedback, innovation, and dissemination efforts. After receiving a participatory research grant from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention aimed at increasing colorectal cancer screening, the CAC participated in an intensive training on colon cancer prevention and spent 6 months developing a locally relevant intervention-Testing to Prevent Colon Cancer. CAC members participated in all aspects of the research including intervention messaging, survey design, recruitment, implementation, analysis and interpretation of data, and dissemination of results including presentations at national venues and coauthoring manuscripts. Our experience attests to the power of participatory research in efforts to improve health outcomes.
    The Annals of Family Medicine 11/2013; 11(6):568-70. DOI:10.1370/afm.1586 · 5.43 Impact Factor
  • Source
    The Annals of Family Medicine 11/2013; 11(6):498-499. DOI:10.1370/afm.1603 · 5.43 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Currently, national training programs do not have the capacity to meet the growing demand for dissemination and implementation (D&I) workforce education and development. The Colorado Research in Implementation Science Program (CRISP) developed and delivered an introductory D&I workshop adapted from national programs to extend training reach and foster a local learning community for D&I. To gauge interest and assess learning needs, a pre-registration survey was administered. Based on feedback, a 1.5-day workshop was designed. Day 1 introduced D&I frameworks, strategies, and evaluation principles. Local and national D&I experts provided ignite-style talks on key lessons followed by panel discussion. Breakout sessions discussed community engagement and applying for D&I grants. A workbook was developed to enhance the training and provided exercises for application to an individual's projects. Day 2 offered expert-led mentoring sessions with selected participants who desired advanced instruction. Two follow-up surveys (immediate post-workshop, 6 months) assessed knowledge gained from participation and utilization of workshop content. Ninety-three workshop registrants completed an assessment survey to inform workshop objectives and curriculum design; 43 % were new and 54 % reported a basic understanding of the D&I field. Pre-registrants intended to use the training to "apply for a D&I grant" (73 %); "incorporate D&I into existing projects" (76 %), and for quality improvement (51 %). Sixty-eight individuals attended Day 1; 11 also attended Day 2 mentoring sessions. In the 1-week post-workshop survey (n = 34), 100 % strongly agreed they were satisfied with the training; 97 % strongly agreed the workshop workbook was a valuable resource. All Day 2 participants strongly agreed that working closely with faculty and experts increased their overall confidence. In the 6-month follow-up evaluation (n = 23), evidence of new D&I-related manuscripts and grant proposals was found. Training materials were published online ( ) and disseminated via the National Institutes of Health (NIH) Clinical and Translational Science Awards Consortium. To sustain reach, CRISP adapted the materials into an interactive e-book ( ) and launched a new graduate course. Local D&I training workshops can extend the reach of national training programs.
    Implementation Science 12/2015; 10(1):94. DOI:10.1186/s13012-015-0281-6 · 4.12 Impact Factor