Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

A randomized controlled trial of two interventions to increase colorectal cancer screening among Hispanics on the Texas–Mexico border

  • Original paper
  • Published:
Cancer Causes & Control Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Background

Colorectal cancer (CRC) is the second and third leading cause of cancer death for Hispanic men and women, respectively. CRC can be prevented if precursors are detected early and removed and can be successfully treated if discovered early. While one-on-one interventions for increasing CRC screening (CRCS) are recommended, few studies specifically assess the effectiveness of lay health worker (LHW) approaches using different educational materials.

Purpose

To develop and evaluate the effectiveness of two LHW-delivered CRCS interventions known as Vale la Pena (VLP; “It’s Worth It!”) on increasing CRCS among Hispanics.

Design

The study design was a cluster randomized controlled trial with two treatment arms.

Setting/participants

Six hundred and sixty five Hispanics 50 years and older were recruited from 24 colonias (neighborhoods) in the Lower Rio Grande Valley of the Texas–Mexico border.

Intervention

The interventions were a small media print intervention (SMPI) (including DVD and flipchart), and a tailored interactive multimedia intervention (TIMI) delivered on tablet computers. A no intervention group served as the comparison group. Data were collected between 2007 and 2009 and analyzed between 2009 and 2013.

Main outcome measures

Measures assessed CRCS behavior, self-efficacy, knowledge, and other psychosocial constructs related to CRCS and targeted through VLP.

Results

Among participants reached for follow-up, 18.9 % in the SMPI group, 13.3 % in the TIMI group, and 11.9 % in the comparison group completed CRCS. Intent-to-treat analysis showed that 13.6 % in the SMPI group, 10.2 % in the TIMI group, and 10.8 % in the comparison group completed CRCS. These differences were not statistically significant.

Conclusion

Results indicated that there are no significant differences in CRCS uptake between groups.

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 (2012) Cancer facts and figures for hispanics/latinos 2012–2014. American Cancer Society. http://www.cancer.org/acs/groups/content/@epidemiologysurveilance/documents/document/acspc-034778.pdf

  2. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) (2013) Vital signs: colorectal cancer screening test use—United States, 2012. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep 62(44):881–888

    Google Scholar 

  3. Community Preventives Services Task Force (2012) Updated recommendations for client- and provider-oriented interventions to increase breast, cervical, and colorectal cancer screening. Am J Prev Med 43(1):92–96

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Sabatino SA, Lawrence B, Elder R et al (2012) Effectiveness of interventions to increase screening for breast, cervical, and colorectal cancers: nine updated systematic reviews for the guide to community preventive services. Am J Prev Med 43(1):97–118

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Graham JW, Flay BR, Johnson CA, Hansen WB, Collins LM (1984) A multiattribute utility measurement approach to the use of random assignment with small numbers of aggregated units. Eval Rev 8(2):247–260

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Bennett S, Radalowicz A, Vella V, Tomkins A (1994) A computer simulation of household sampling schemes for health surveys in developing countries. Int J Epidemiol 23(6):1282–1291

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Jemal A, Tiwari RC, Murray T et al (2004) Cancer statistics, 2004. CA Cancer J Clin 54(1):8–29

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Bartholomew LK, Parcel GS, Kok G, Gottlieb NH, Fernandez ME (2011) Planning health promotion programs: an intervention mapping approach. Jossey-Bass, San Francisco

    Google Scholar 

  9. Fishbein M, Yzer MC (2003) Using theory to design effective health behavior interventions. Commun Theory 13(2):164–183

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Fernandez ME, Wippold R, Torres-Vigil I et al (2008) Colorectal cancer screening among Latinos from US cities along the Texas–Mexico border. Cancer Causes Control 19(2):195–206

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Fernández ME, Savas LS, Wilson KM et al (2014) Colorectal cancer screening among latinos in three communities on the Texas–Mexico border. Health Educ Behav. doi:10.1177/1090198114529592

  12. Vernon SW, Gritz ER, Peterson SK et al (1997) Correlates of psychologic distress in colorectal cancer patients undergoing genetic testing for hereditary colon cancer. Health Psychol 16(1):73–86

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Vernon SW, Myers RE, Tilley BC (1997) Development and validation of an instrument to measure factors related to colorectal cancer screening adherence. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 6(10):825–832

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Vernon SW, Briss PA, Tiro JA, Warnecke RB (2004) Some methodologic lessons learned from cancer screening research. Cancer 101(5 Suppl):1131–1145

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Vernon SW, Bartholomew LK, McQueen A et al (2011) A randomized controlled trial of a tailored interactive computer-delivered intervention to promote colorectal cancer screening: sometimes more is just the same. Ann Behav Med 41(3):284–299

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Moralez EA, Rao SP, Livaudais JC, Thompson B (2012) Improving knowledge and screening for colorectal cancer among Hispanics: overcoming barriers through a PROMOTORA-led home-based educational intervention. J Cancer Educ 27(3):533–539

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Larkey LK, Herman PM, Roe DJ et al (2012) A cancer screening intervention for underserved Latina women by lay educators. J Womens Health (Larchmt) 21(5):557–566

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Walsh JM, Salazar R, Nguyen TT et al (2010) Healthy colon, healthy life: a novel colorectal cancer screening intervention. Am J Prev Med 39(1):1–14

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Hou SI, Sealy DA, Kabiru CW (2011) Closing the disparity gap: cancer screening interventions among Asians—a systematic literature review. Asian Pac J Cancer Prev 12(11):3133–3139

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Tu SP, Taylor V, Yasui Y et al (2006) Promoting culturally appropriate colorectal cancer screening through a health educator: a randomized controlled trial. Cancer 107(5):959–966

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Maxwell AE, Bastani R, Danao LL, Antonio C, Garcia GM, Crespi CM (2010) Results of a community-based randomized trial to increase colorectal cancer screening among Filipino Americans. Am J Public Health 100(11):2228–2234

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Park S, Chung C, Cochrane BB (2013) Effects of tailored message education about breast cancer risk appraisal for obese Korean women. Oncol Nurs Forum 40(6):E382–E392

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Dunn S, Rossiter L, Ferne J, Barnes E, Wu W (2013) Improved adherence to colposcopy through nurse-led telephone counselling and multifaceted patient support. J Obstet Gynaecol Can 35(8):723–729

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Fornos LB, Urbansky KA, Villarreal R (2013) Increasing cervical cancer screening for a multiethnic population of women in South Texas. J Cancer Educ 29(1):62–68

  25. Manne SL, Kashy DA, Weinberg DS, Boscarino JA, Bowen DJ, Worhach S (2013) A pilot evaluation of the efficacy of a couple-tailored print intervention on colorectal cancer screening practices among non-adherent couples. Psychol Health 28(9):1046–1065

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Miller SM, Roussi P, Scarpato J, Wen KY, Zhu F, Roy G (2014) Randomized trial of print messaging: the role of the partner and monitoring style in promoting provider discussions about prostate cancer screening among African American men. Psychooncology 23(4):404–411

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Christy SM, Perkins SM, Tong Y et al (2013) Promoting colorectal cancer screening discussion: a randomized controlled trial. Am J Prev Med 44(4):325–329

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Jerant A, Kravitz RL, Rooney M, Amerson S, Kreuter M, Franks P (2007) Effects of a tailored interactive multimedia computer program on determinants of colorectal cancer screening: a randomized controlled pilot study in physician offices. Patient Educ Couns 66(1):67–74

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Weinberg DS, Keenan E, Ruth K, Devarajan K, Rodoletz M, Bieber EJ (2013) A randomized comparison of print and web communication on colorectal cancer screening. JAMA Intern Med 173(2):122–129

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Arvey SR, Fernandez ME, LaRue DM, Bartholomew LK (2012) When promotoras and technology meet: a qualitative analysis of promotoras’ use of small media to increase cancer screening among South Texas Latinos. Health Educ Behav 39(3):352–363

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Pew Research Center. Smartphone Ownership (2013) Update. Pew Research Center. http://www.pewinternet.org/≃/media//Files/Reports/2013/PIP_Smartphone_adoption_2013.pdf

  32. Devaney T (2012) Hispanics lead way in adopting mobile technology. HispanicBusiness.com. http://www.hispanicbusiness.com/2012/5/2/hispanics_lead_way_in_adopting_mobile.htm

  33. Bowden VM, Wood FB, Warner DG, Olney CA, Olivier ER, Siegel ER (2006) Health information Hispanic outreach in the Texas Lower Rio Grande Valley. J Med Libr Assoc 94(2):180–189

    PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Vernon SW (1997) Participation in colorectal cancer screening: a review. J Natl Cancer Inst 89(19):1406–1422

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Godin G, Sheeran P, Conner M et al (2010) Which survey questions change behavior? Randomized controlled trial of mere measurement interventions. Health Psychol 29(6):636–644

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Conflict of interest

Include a statement from each of the authors disclosing all funding sources that supported their work as well as all institutional and corporate affiliations. Types of support include, but are not limited to: grants, consulting fees or honoraria related to the study, fees related to data monitoring boards, statistical analysis, etc., funds for writing or reviewing the manuscript, and non-monetary support such as writing or administrative assistance, or provision of equipment. Authors must also specify whether or not the study sponsor had any role in study design; collection, analysis, and interpretation of data; writing the report; and the decision to submit the report for publication.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. School of Public Health, Center for Health Promotion and Prevention Research, University of Texas Health Science Center at Houston, 7000 Fannin St., Suite 2558, Houston, TX, 77030, USA

    María E. Fernández, Lara S. Savas, Sarah Krasny & Sally W. Vernon

  2. Department of Educational Psychology, College of Education, University of Houston, Houston, TX, USA

    Chakema C. Carmack

  3. Department of Biostatistics, The University of Texas School of Public Health, Houston, TX, USA

    Wenyaw Chan

  4. Division of Management, Policy, and Community Health, The University of Texas School of Public Health, Houston, TX, USA

    David R. Lairson

  5. Department of Public Health, Texas Tech University Health Sciences Center, Lubbock, TX, USA

    Theresa L. Byrd

  6. Epidemiology and Applied Research Branch, Division of Cancer Prevention and Control, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, GA, USA

    Katherine M. Wilson

  7. Livestrong Foundation, Austin, TX, USA

    Sarah R. Arvey

Authors
  1. María E. Fernández
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Lara S. Savas
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Chakema C. Carmack
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Wenyaw Chan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. David R. Lairson
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Theresa L. Byrd
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Katherine M. Wilson
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Sarah R. Arvey
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  9. Sarah Krasny
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  10. Sally W. Vernon
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to María E. Fernández.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Fernández, M.E., Savas, L.S., Carmack, C.C. et al. A randomized controlled trial of two interventions to increase colorectal cancer screening among Hispanics on the Texas–Mexico border. Cancer Causes Control 26, 1–10 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10552-014-0472-5

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10552-014-0472-5

Keywords

Search

Navigation