lunes, 11 de noviembre de 2019

Comparative Effectiveness of Two Interventions to Increase Colorectal Cancer Screening for those at Increased Risk Based on Family History: Results... - PubMed - NCBI

2019 Oct 30. pii: cebp.0797.2019. doi: 10.1158/1055-9965.EPI-19-0797. [Epub ahead of print]

Comparative Effectiveness of Two Interventions to Increase Colorectal Cancer Screening for those at Increased Risk Based on Family History: Results of a Randomized Trial.

Paskett ED1, Bernardo BM2, Young GS3, Katz ML4, Reiter PL5, Tatum CM2, Oliveri JM5, DeGraffinreid CR6, Gray DM7, Pearlman R8, Hampel H9.

Author information

1: Comprehensive Cancer Center, Ohio State University electra.paskett@osumc.edu.
2: Comprehensive Cancer Center, Ohio State University.
3: Center for Biostatistics, Ohio State University.
4: Comprehensive Cancer Center and College of Public Health, Ohio State University.
5: College of Public Health, Ohio State University.
6: Comprehensive Cancer Center, The Ohio State University.
7: Department of Internal Medicine, The Ohio State University Wexner Medical Center.
8: Comprehensive Cancer Center, Division of Human Genetics, Ohio State University.
9: Internal Medicine, Ohio State University.

Abstract

BACKGROUND:

First degree relatives (FDRs) of colorectal cancer (CRC) patients are at risk for CRC, but may not be up to date with CRC screening. We sought to determine if a one-time recommendation about needing CRC screening using patient navigation (PN) was better than just receiving the recommendation only.

METHODS:

Participants were FDRs of Lynch syndrome negative CRC patients from participating Ohio hospitals. FDRs from 259 families were randomized to a website intervention (528 individuals), which included a survey and personal CRC screening recommendation, while those from 254 families were randomized to the website plus telephonic PN intervention (515 individuals). Primary outcome was adherence to the personal screening recommendation (to get screened or not to get screened) received from the website. Secondary outcomes examined who benefited from adding PN.

RESULTS:

At the end of the 14-month follow-up, 78.6% of participants were adherent to their recommendation for CRC screening with adherence similar between arms (p=0.14). Among those who received a recommendation to have a colonoscopy immediately, the website plus PN intervention significantly increased the odds of receiving screening, compared to the website intervention (OR: 2.98, 95% CI: (1.68, 5.28).

CONCLUSIONS:

Addition of PN to a website intervention did not improve adherence to a CRC screening recommendation overall, however, the addition of PN was more effective in increasing adherence among FDRs who needed screening immediately.

IMPACT:

These findings provide important information as to when the additional costs of PN are needed to assure CRC screening among those at high risk for CRC.