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 Dec;42(3):294-303.
doi: 10.1007/s12160-011-9291-z.

A randomized trial comparing the effect of two phone-based interventions on colorectal cancer screening adherence

Usha Menon  1 , Rhonda Belue, Stéphanie Wahab, Kathryn Rugen, Anita Y Kinney, Peter Maramaldi, Debra Wujcik, Laura A Szalacha
Affiliations
Randomized Controlled Trial

A randomized trial comparing the effect of two phone-based interventions on colorectal cancer screening adherence

Usha Menon et al. Ann Behav Med. 2011 Dec.

Abstract

Background: Early-stage diagnosis of colorectal cancer is associated with high survival rates; screening prevalence, however, remains suboptimal.

Purpose: This study seeks to test the hypothesis that participants receiving telephone-based tailored education or motivational interviewing had higher colorectal cancer screening completion rates compared to usual care.

Methods: Primary care patients not adherent with colorectal cancer screening and with no personal or family history of cancer (n = 515) were assigned by block randomization to control (n = 169), tailored education (n = 168), or motivational interview (n = 178). The response rate was 70%; attrition was 24%.

Results: Highest screening occurred in the tailored education group (23.8%, p < .02); participants had 2.2 times the odds of completing a post-intervention colorectal cancer screening than did the control group (AOR = 2.2, CI = 1.2-4.0). Motivational interviewing was not associated with significant increase in post-intervention screening.

Conclusions: Tailored education showed promise as a feasible strategy to increase colorectal cancer screening.

Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT01099826.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

Authors have no conflicts of interest to disclose.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Study Participant Flow Diagramabc MW1 = Midwest site 1 MW2 = Midwest site 2 SE = Southeast site Reasons for attrition: refused, unable to contact; deceased Final Total Study n = 515
See this image and copyright information in PMC

References

    1. Jemal A, Siegel R, Ward E, Hao Y, Xu J, Thun MJ. Cancer statistics, 2009. CA Cancer J Clin. 2009;59(4):225–249. - PubMed
    1. Levin B, Lieberman DA, McFarland B, et al. 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. Gastroenterology. 2008;134(5):1570–1595. - PubMed
    1. U.S. Cancer Statistics Working Group. [Accessibility verified January 10, 2010];United States cancer statistics: 1999–2005 incidence and mortality web-based report. Available at http:www.cdc.gov/uscs.
    1. Edwards BK, Ward E, Kohler BA, et al. Annual report to the nation on the status of cancer, 1975–2006, featuring colorectal cancer trends and impact of interventions (risk factors, screening, and treatment) to reduce future rates. Cancer. 2010;116(3):544–573. - PMC - PubMed
    1. United States Preventive Services Task Force. 2009 clinical guidelines: screening for colorectal cancer: U.S. Preventive Services Task Force recommendation statement. Prev Med. 2009;149:627–637. - PubMed

Publication types

Associated data