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

  • Sharon L. Manne
  • Elliot J. Coups
  • Arnold Markowitz
  • Neal J. Meropol
  • Daniel Haller
  • Paul B. Jacobsen
  • Lina Jandorf
  • Susan K. Peterson
  • Samuel Lesko
  • Steven Pilipshen
  • Gary Winkel
Original Article

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.

Keywords

Colorectal cancer screening Tailored interventions Intermediate risk siblings 

References

  1. 1.
    American Cancer Society, Cancer facts and figures. Atlanta, Georgia: 2008.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Lynch HT, Lynch PM, Albana WA. Hereditary cancer: Ascertainment and management. CA. 1979; 29: 216–232.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 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.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 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.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 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.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Johns LE, Houlston RS. A systematic review and meta-analysis of familial colorectal cancer risk. Am J Gastroenterol. 2001; 96(10): 2992–3003.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 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.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 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.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 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. 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.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 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.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 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.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 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.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 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.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 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.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 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. 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.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 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.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Janz NK, Becker MH. The health belief model: A decade later. Health Educ Q. 1984; 84: 104–106.Google Scholar
  21. 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. 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. 23.
    Prochaska JO, DiClemente CC. Transtheoretical therapy: Toward a more integrative model of change. Psychother: Theory, Res Prac. 1982; 20: 161–173.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 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. 25.
    Leventhal H. Findings and theory in the study of fear communications. Adv Exp Social Psychol. 1970; 5: 119–186.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 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. 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.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 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.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. 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. 30.
    Miller WR, Rollnick S. Motivational Interviewing: Preparing People for Change. 2nd ed. New York: Guildord Press; 2002.Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Townsend A, Franks M. Binding ties: Closeness and conflict in adult children’s caregiving relationships. Psychol Aging. 1995; 10: 343–351.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 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.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 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.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 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.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 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. 36.
    Singer JD, Willett JB. Applied Longitudinal Data A: Modeling Change and Event Occurrence. New York: Oxford; 2003.Google Scholar
  37. 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.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 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.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 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.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 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.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 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.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Society of Behavioral Medicine 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  • Sharon L. Manne
    • 1
  • Elliot J. Coups
    • 1
  • Arnold Markowitz
    • 2
  • Neal J. Meropol
    • 1
  • Daniel Haller
    • 3
  • Paul B. Jacobsen
    • 4
  • Lina Jandorf
    • 5
  • Susan K. Peterson
    • 6
  • Samuel Lesko
    • 7
  • Steven Pilipshen
    • 8
  • Gary Winkel
    • 9
  1. 1.Fox Chase Cancer CenterPhiladelphiaUSA
  2. 2.Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer CenterNew YorkUSA
  3. 3.The Hospital of the University of PennsylvaniaPhiladelphiaUSA
  4. 4.Moffitt Cancer CenterTampaUSA
  5. 5.Mount Sinai School of MedicineNew YorkUSA
  6. 6.The University of Texas M.D. Anderson Cancer CenterHoustonUSA
  7. 7.Northeast Regional Cancer InstituteScrantonUSA
  8. 8.Colorectal Surgical Associates of New JerseyShrewsburyUSA
  9. 9.City University of New YorkNew YorkUSA

Personalised recommendations