IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/medema/v40y2020i1p29-41.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Impact of Tailored Interventions on Receipt of a Preference-Concordant Colorectal Cancer Screening Test

Author

Listed:
  • Shannon M. Christy

    (Department of Health Outcomes and Behavior, Division of Population Science, H. Lee Moffitt Cancer Center and Research Institute, Tampa, FL, USA
    Department of Oncologic Sciences, Morsani College of Medicine, University of South Florida, Tampa, FL, USA
    Department of Psychology, Purdue School of Science, Indiana University–Purdue University Indianapolis, Indianapolis, IN, USA)

  • Patrick O. Monahan

    (Department of Biostatistics, Indiana University School of Medicine and Richard M. Fairbanks School of Public Health, Indianapolis, IN, USA
    Indiana University Simon Cancer Center, Indianapolis, IN, USA)

  • Timothy E. Stump

    (Department of Biostatistics, Indiana University School of Medicine, Indianapolis, IN, USA)

  • Susan M. Rawl

    (Indiana University Simon Cancer Center, Indianapolis, IN, USA
    Department of Science of Nursing Care, Indiana University School of Nursing, Indianapolis, IN, USA)

  • Victoria L. Champion

    (Indiana University Simon Cancer Center, Indianapolis, IN, USA
    Department of Community & Health Systems, Indiana University School of Nursing, Indianapolis, IN, USA)

Abstract

Background. Individuals at average risk for colorectal cancer (CRC) have multiple test options. Preference for a specific test modality may affect decision making about CRC screening. The current study examined 1) the sociodemographic and health belief characteristics of average-risk participants with a test preference for stool blood test (SBT) versus those with a preference of colonoscopy, and following receipt of a tailored CRC screening intervention, 2) the percentage of participants who completed a preference-concordant CRC screening test, and 3) the sociodemographic, health care experience, and health belief characteristics and intervention group(s) associated with completion of a preference-concordant screening test. Methods. Participants ( N = 603) were female, aged 50 to 75 years, at average CRC risk, not currently up-to-date with CRC screening recommendations, had Internet access, and were randomized to receive 1 of 3 tailored CRC screening promotion interventions. Multivariable logistic regression analyses were conducted. Results. Most women (64%) preferred SBT, whereas 36% preferred colonoscopy. There were significant differences in test preference by age, stage of change for the specific tests, perceived benefits of CRC screening, perceived barriers to both tests, and self-efficacy for colonoscopy. Two hundred thirty participants completed CRC screening at 6 months post-intervention. Of those, most (84%) completed a test concordant with their preference. Multivariable analyses revealed that compared with participants completing a preference-discordant test, those completing a preference-concordant test were older ( P = 0.01), had health insurance ( P

Suggested Citation

  • Shannon M. Christy & Patrick O. Monahan & Timothy E. Stump & Susan M. Rawl & Victoria L. Champion, 2020. "Impact of Tailored Interventions on Receipt of a Preference-Concordant Colorectal Cancer Screening Test," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 40(1), pages 29-41, January.
    • Handle: RePEc:sae:medema:v:40:y:2020:i:1:p:29-41
    DOI: 10.1177/0272989X19890603
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0272989X19890603
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1177/0272989X19890603?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:sae:medema:v:40:y:2020:i:1:p:29-41. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: SAGE Publications (email available below). General contact details of provider: .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.