Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

A Randomized Trial of Generic Versus Tailored Interventions to Increase Colorectal Cancer Screening Among Intermediate Risk Siblings

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Annals of Behavioral Medicine

Abstract

Background

Individuals with a sibling who has had colorectal cancer diagnosed before age 61 are at increased risk for colorectal cancer and may derive particular benefit from screening. Tailored interventions may increase participation in appropriate colorectal cancer screening.

Purpose

This study evaluated the efficacy of two tailored interventions and a generic print intervention.

Methods

Participant siblings (N = 412) who were not up-to-date with colorectal cancer screening were randomly assigned to receive either a generic print pamphlet, a tailored print pamphlet, or a tailored print pamphlet and tailored counseling call. Colorectal cancer screening 6 months after the baseline interview was the outcome measure.

Results

Results indicated that colorectal cancer screening adherence increased among intermediate risk siblings enrolled in all three intervention groups. Participants in both tailored intervention groups reported having colorectal cancer screening at significantly higher rates than participants in the generic print group. The increase in colorectal cancer screening in the tailored print and counseling call group was not significantly higher than that achieved by the tailored print alone. Decisional balance partially mediated treatment effects. Tailored behavioral interventions are effective methods for increasing screening adherence but telephone counseling did not add significantly to treatment effects.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. American Cancer Society, Cancer facts and figures. Atlanta, Georgia: 2008.

  2. Lynch HT, Lynch PM, Albana WA. Hereditary cancer: Ascertainment and management. CA. 1979; 29: 216–232.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. St. John DJB, McDermott FT, Hopper LJ. Cancer risk in relatives of patients with common colorectal cancer. Ann Intern Med. 1993; 118: 785–790.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Rozen P, Fireman Z, Figer A, Legum C. Family history of colorectal cancer as a marker of potential malignancy within a screening program. Cancer. 1987; 60: 248–524.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Fuchs CS, Giovannucci E, Colditz G, Hunter DJ. A prospective study of family history and risk of colorectal cancer. N Engl J Med. 1994; 331: 1669–1674.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Johns LE, Houlston RS. A systematic review and meta-analysis of familial colorectal cancer risk. Am J Gastroenterol. 2001; 96(10): 2992–3003.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Mandel JS, Bond JH, Church TR, et al. Reducing mortality from colorectal cancer by screening for fecal occult blood. N Engl J Med. 1993; 328: 1365–1371.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Selby JV, Friedman GD, Quesenberry CPJ, Weiss NS. A case-control study of screening sigmoidoscopy and mortality from colorectal cancer. N Engl J Med. 1992; 326: 653–702.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Levin B, Lieberman A, 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. CA A Cancer J Clin. 2008; 58: 130–160.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Thrasher J, Cummings M, Michalek A, Mahoney MK, Pillittere D. Colorectal cancer screening among individuals with and without a family history. J Public Health Manag Prac. 2002; 8: 1–9.

    Google Scholar 

  11. Ruthotto F, Papendorf F, Wegener G, et al. Participation in screening colonoscopy in first-degree relatives from patients with colorectal cancer. Ann Oncol. 2007; 18: 1518–1522.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Manne S, Markowitz A, Winawer S, et al. Correlates of colorectal cancer screening compliance and stage of adoption among siblings of individuals with early onset colorectal cancer. Health Psychol. 2002; 21(1): 3–15.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Madlensky L, Esplen MJ, Goel V. Reasons given by relatives of colorectal cancer patients for not undergoing screening. Prev Med. 2004; 39: 643–648.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Caffarey SM, Broughton CIM, Marks CG. Faecal occult blood screening for colorectal neoplasia in a targeted high-risk population. Br J Surg. 1993; 80: 1399–1400.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Glanz K, Steffen AD, Taglialatela LA. Effects of colon cancer risk counseling for first-degree relatives. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev. 2007; 16(7): 1485–1491.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Rawl S, Champion V, Scott L, et al. A randomized trial of two print interventions to increase colon cancer screening among first-degree relatives. Patient Educ Couns. 2008; 71(2) :215–227.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Kreuter M, Wray R. Tailored and targeted health communication: Strategies for enhancing information relevance. Am J Health Promo. 2003; Supp 3: S227–32.

    Google Scholar 

  18. Noar S, Benac C, Harris M. Does tailoring matter? Meta-analytic review of tailored bring health behavior change. Psychol Bull. 2007; 133: 673–693.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Myers R, Sifri R, Hyslop T, et al. A randomized controlled trial of the impact of targeted and tailored interventions on colorectal cancer screening. Cancer. 2007; 110: 2083–2091.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Janz NK, Becker MH. The health belief model: A decade later. Health Educ Q. 1984; 84: 104–106.

    Google Scholar 

  21. Rosenstock IM. The health belief model and preventive health behavior. In: Becker MH, ed. The Health Belief Model and Personal Health Behavior. Thorofare, NJ: Charles B. Slack; 1974: 27–59.

    Google Scholar 

  22. Champion V, Skinner CS. The health belief model. In: Glanz K, Rimer BK, Viswanath K, eds. Health Behavior and Health Education: Theory, Research, and Practice. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass; 2008: 45–65.

    Google Scholar 

  23. Prochaska JO, DiClemente CC. Transtheoretical therapy: Toward a more integrative model of change. Psychother: Theory, Res Prac. 1982; 20: 161–173.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Prochaska JO, Redding C, Evers K. The transtheoretical model and stages of change. In: Glanz K, Rimer BK, Viswanath K, eds. Health Behavior and Health Education: Theory Research and Practice. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass; 2008: 97–121.

    Google Scholar 

  25. Leventhal H. Findings and theory in the study of fear communications. Adv Exp Social Psychol. 1970; 5: 119–186.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Leventhal H, Brissette I, Leventhal EA. The common-sense model of self-regulation of health and illness. In: Cameron LD, Leventhal H, eds. The self-regulation of health and illness behaviour. London: Routledge; 2003: 42–65.

    Google Scholar 

  27. Aiken LS, West SG, Woodward CK, Reno RR. Health beliefs and compliance with mammography-screening recommendations in asymptomatic women. Health Psychol. 1994; 13: 122–129.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Rauscher G, Earp J, O’Malley M. Relation between intervention exposures, changes in attitudes and mammography use in the North Carolina Breast Cancer Screening Program. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev. 2004; 13: 741–747.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Center for Disease Control. Colorectal Cancer Screening Saves Lives. CDC Pamphlet, 2002; available at http://www.cdc.gov/cancer/colorectal/sfl/print_materials. Accessability verified October 22, 2008.

  30. Miller WR, Rollnick S. Motivational Interviewing: Preparing People for Change. 2nd ed. New York: Guildord Press; 2002.

    Google Scholar 

  31. Townsend A, Franks M. Binding ties: Closeness and conflict in adult children’s caregiving relationships. Psychol Aging. 1995; 10: 343–351.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Lipkus I, Rimer B, Halabi S, Strigo T. Can tailored interventions increase mammography us among HMO women. Am J Prev Med. 2000; 18(1): 1–10.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Brug J, Steenhuis I, Van Assema P, de Vries H. The impact of a computer-tailored nutrition intervention. Prev Med. 1996; 25: 236–242.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Baron RM, Kenny DA. The moderator-mediator variable distinction in social psychological and research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. J Pers Soc Psychol. 1986; 51: 1173–1182.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Kenny DA, Kashy DA, Bolger N. Data analysis in social psychology. Vol. 1. In: Gilbert D, Fiske ST, Lindzey G, eds. Handbook of Social Psychology. 4th ed. McGraw-Hill: New York; 2003.

    Google Scholar 

  36. Singer JD, Willett JB. Applied Longitudinal Data A: Modeling Change and Event Occurrence. New York: Oxford; 2003.

    Google Scholar 

  37. Prochaska JO, DiClemente CC, Velicer WF, Rossi JS. Standardized, individualized, interactive, and personalized self-help programs for smoking cessation. Health Psychol. 1993; 12: 399–405.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. Pinto BM, Lynn H, Marcus BH, DePue J, Goldstein MG. Physical-based activity counseling: Intervention effects on mediators of motivational readiness for physical activity. Ann Behav Med. 2001; 23(23): 2–10.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. Hay J, Oliveria S, Dusza S, et al. Psychosocial mediators of a nurse intervention to increase skin self-examination in patients at high risk for melanoma. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev. 2006; 15: 1212–1216.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  40. Kraemer HC, Stice E, Kazdin A, Offord D, Kupfer D. How do risk factors work together? Mediators, moderators, and independent, overlapping, and proxy risk factors. Am J Psychiatry. 2001; 158(6): 848–856.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  41. Green LW, Glasgow RE. Evaluating the relevance, generalization and applicability of research: Issues in external validation and translation methodology. Eval Health Prof. 2006; 29 s:126–153.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

We would like to thank Jackie Allen, Christine Armetta, Hela Bakal, Pat Barry, Trudy Bennett, Cathy Betz, Angela Calnon, Lauren DeEcheandia, Terry Del Rio, Gail DeMaio, Rebekah Dunn, Tim Estrella, Millie Fleetwood, Diane Foglia, Lugenia Ford, Dot Freeman, Jolene Garney, Linda Gray, Leigh Hamilton, Laura Hammond, Danielle Hawthorne, Dr. Tim Hoops, Kim Kiefer, Betsy Kopp, Nancy Koppelman, Dr. Ben Krevsky, Stefanie Lappe, Denise LaRue, Debra Marra, Michele Marshall, Katie Masters, Tracy Max, Stacy McConnell, Kristine Miranda, Cheryl Mongillo, Eileen Morris, Dr. Peter O’Dwyer, Melanie Pirollo, Nancy Rohowyj, Kevin Schumann, Maggie Sibert, Marianna Silverman, Kristen Sorice, Wendy Stanton, Richard Throm, Amanda Tow, Gail Upshaw, Katherine Waite, and Pat Weiser for assistance with data collection. We would like to thank Wayne Bulger and Micromass Communications, Inc., who produced the tailored print materials. Maryann Krayger provided technical assistance in preparation of this article. Belinda Borrelli, Ph.D. provided supervision in MI. We would like to thank the physicians and nurses at all study sites, as well as the staff of the Cancer Community Oncology Program for their assistance in identifying participants for this study. This work was supported by grant RO1CA75795 from the National Institutes of Health to Sharon L. Manne and P30 CA006927 to Fox Chase Cancer Center.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Fox Chase Cancer Center, Philadelphia, PA, USA

    Sharon L. Manne Ph.D., Elliot J. Coups Ph.D. & Neal J. Meropol M.D.

  2. Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY, USA

    Arnold Markowitz M.D.

  3. The Hospital of the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA

    Daniel Haller M.D.

  4. Moffitt Cancer Center, Tampa, FL, USA

    Paul B. Jacobsen Ph.D.

  5. Mount Sinai School of Medicine, New York, NY, USA

    Lina Jandorf M.A.

  6. The University of Texas M.D. Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA

    Susan K. Peterson Ph.D., M.P.H.

  7. Northeast Regional Cancer Institute, Scranton, PA, USA

    Samuel Lesko M.D., M.P.H.

  8. Colorectal Surgical Associates of New Jersey, Shrewsbury, NJ, USA

    Steven Pilipshen M.D.

  9. City University of New York, New York, NY, USA

    Gary Winkel Ph.D.

Authors
  1. Sharon L. Manne Ph.D.
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Elliot J. Coups Ph.D.
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Arnold Markowitz M.D.
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Neal J. Meropol M.D.
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Daniel Haller M.D.
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Paul B. Jacobsen Ph.D.
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Lina Jandorf M.A.
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Susan K. Peterson Ph.D., M.P.H.
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  9. Samuel Lesko M.D., M.P.H.
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  10. Steven Pilipshen M.D.
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  11. Gary Winkel Ph.D.
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Sharon L. Manne Ph.D..

About this article

Cite this article

Manne, S.L., Coups, E.J., Markowitz, A. et al. A Randomized Trial of Generic Versus Tailored Interventions to Increase Colorectal Cancer Screening Among Intermediate Risk Siblings. ann. behav. med. 37, 207–217 (2009). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12160-009-9103-x

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12160-009-9103-x

Keywords

Search

Navigation