Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Randomized Controlled Trial
. 2011 Jun;41(3):284-99.
doi: 10.1007/s12160-010-9258-5.

A randomized controlled trial of a tailored interactive computer-delivered intervention to promote colorectal cancer screening: sometimes more is just the same

Sally W Vernon  1 , Leona K Bartholomew, Amy McQueen, Judy L Bettencourt, Anthony Greisinger, Sharon P Coan, David Lairson, Wenyaw Chan, S T Hawley, R E Myers
Affiliations
Randomized Controlled Trial

A randomized controlled trial of a tailored interactive computer-delivered intervention to promote colorectal cancer screening: sometimes more is just the same

Sally W Vernon et al. Ann Behav Med. 2011 Jun.

Abstract

Background: There have been few studies of tailored interventions to promote colorectal cancer (CRC) screening.

Purpose: We conducted a randomized trial of a tailored, interactive intervention to increase CRC screening.

Methods: Patients 50-70 years completed a baseline survey, were randomized to one of three groups, and attended a wellness exam after being exposed to a tailored intervention about CRC screening (tailored group), a public web site about CRC screening (web site group), or no intervention (survey-only group). The primary outcome was completion of any recommended CRC screening by 6 months.

Results: There was no statistically significant difference in screening by 6 months: 30%, 31%, and 28% of the survey-only, web site, and tailored groups were screened. Exposure to the tailored intervention was associated with increased knowledge and CRC screening self-efficacy at 2 weeks and 6 months. Family history, prior screening, stage of change, and physician recommendation moderated the intervention effects.

Conclusions: A tailored intervention was not more effective at increasing screening than a public web site or only being surveyed.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

Conflict of Interest Statement The authors have no conflict of interest to disclose.

Figures

Fig. 1
Fig. 1
CONSORT flow diagram. *The intention-to-treat analyses included all eligible participants who responded to the baseline survey and were randomized to a study group regardless of further participation. In the per protocol analyses, we only included participants who completed their pre-exam study visit (and intervention, if assigned to the web site or tailored group)
See this image and copyright information in PMC

References

    1. American Cancer Society. Cancer Facts & Figures 2010. Atlanta, GA: American Cancer Society; 2010.
    1. Levin B, Lieberman DA, McFarland B, et al. Cancer J Clin. Vol. 58. CA: 2008. Mar 5, Screening and surveillance for the early detection of colorectal cancer and adenomatous polyps, 2008: A joint guideline from the American Cancer Society, the US Multi-Society Task Force on Colorectal Cancer, and the American College of Radiology; pp. 130–160. - PubMed
    1. Klabunde C. Trends in the use and quality of colorectal cancer screening in the U.S.. Presented at the NIH State-of-the-Science Conference: Enhancing Use and Quality of Colorectal Cancer Screening; February 2–4, 2010; Bethesda, MD. National Cancer Institute; NIH; pp. 47–51. 2-2-2010.
    1. Meissner HI, Breen NL, Klabunde CN, Vernon SW. Patterns of colorectal cancer screening uptake among men and women in the US. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev. 2006;15:389–394. - PubMed
    1. Vernon SW. Participation in colorectal cancer screening: A review. J Natl Cancer Inst. 1997;89:1406–1422. - PubMed

Publication types