{"id":2620,"date":"2013-01-01T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2013-01-01T00:00:00","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/news.christianacare.org\/2013\/01\/a-randomized-controlled-trial-of-a-tailored-navigation-and-a-standard-intervention-in-colorectal-cancer-screening\/"},"modified":"2021-12-13T21:18:46","modified_gmt":"2021-12-13T21:18:46","slug":"a-randomized-controlled-trial-of-a-tailored-navigation-and-a-standard-intervention-in-colorectal-cancer-screening","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/research.christianacare.org\/publications\/2013\/01\/01\/a-randomized-controlled-trial-of-a-tailored-navigation-and-a-standard-intervention-in-colorectal-cancer-screening\/","title":{"rendered":"A randomized controlled trial of a tailored navigation and a standard intervention in colorectal cancer screening"},"content":{"rendered":"<p>Myers RE, Bittner-Fagan H, Daskalakis C, Sifri R, Vernon SW, Cocroft J, Dicarlo M, Katurakes N, Andrel J<\/p>\n<p>Cancer Epidemiol. Biomarkers Prev. 2013 Jan;22(1):109-17<\/p>\n<p>PMID: <a href=\"http:\/\/www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov\/pubmed\/23118143\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">23118143<\/a><\/p>\n<h2>Abstract<\/h2>\n<p><p><strong>BACKGROUND: <\/strong>This randomized, controlled trial assessed the impact of a tailored navigation intervention versus a standard mailed intervention on colorectal cancer screening adherence and screening decision stage (SDS).<\/p>\n<p><strong>METHODS: <\/strong>Primary care patients (n = 945) were surveyed and randomized to a Tailored Navigation Intervention (TNI) Group (n = 312), Standard Intervention (SI) Group (n = 316), or usual care Control Group (n = 317). TNI Group participants were sent colonoscopy instructions and\/or stool blood tests according to reported test preference, and received a navigation call. The SI Group was sent both colonoscopy instructions and stool blood tests. Multivariable analyses assessed intervention impact on adherence and change in SDS at 6 months.<\/p>\n<p><strong>RESULTS: <\/strong>The primary outcome, screening adherence (TNI Group: 38%, SI Group: 33%, Control Group: 12%), was higher for intervention recipients than controls (P = 0.001 and P = 0.001, respectively), but the two intervention groups did not differ significantly (P = 0.201). Positive SDS change (TNI Group: +45%, SI Group: +37%, and Control Group: +23%) was significantly greater among intervention recipients than controls (P = 0.001 and P = 0.001, respectively), and the intervention group difference approached significance (P = 0.053). Secondary analyses indicate that tailored navigation boosted preferred test use, and suggest that intervention impact on adherence and SDS was attenuated by limited access to screening options.<\/p>\n<p><strong>CONCLUSIONS: <\/strong>Both interventions had significant, positive effects on outcomes compared with usual care. TNI versus SI impact had a modest positive impact on adherence and a pronounced effect on SDS.<\/p>\n<p><strong>IMPACT: <\/strong>Mailed screening tests can boost adherence. Research is needed to determine how preference, access, and navigation affect screening outcomes.<\/p><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Myers RE, Bittner-Fagan H, Daskalakis C, Sifri R, Vernon SW, Cocroft J, Dicarlo M, Katurakes N, Andrel J Cancer Epidemiol. Biomarkers Prev. 2013 Jan;22(1):109-17 PMID: 23118143 Abstract BACKGROUND: This randomized, controlled trial assessed the impact of a tailored navigation intervention versus a standard mailed intervention on colorectal cancer screening adherence and screening decision stage (SDS).<\/p>\n<p><a class=\"more-link\" href=\"https:\/\/research.christianacare.org\/publications\/2013\/01\/01\/a-randomized-controlled-trial-of-a-tailored-navigation-and-a-standard-intervention-in-colorectal-cancer-screening\/\">Continue reading <span class=\"screen-reader-text\">A randomized controlled trial of a tailored navigation and a standard intervention in colorectal cancer screening<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[41,1],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-2620","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-ireach","category-pubs-pres"],"acf":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/research.christianacare.org\/publications\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2620","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/research.christianacare.org\/publications\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/research.christianacare.org\/publications\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/research.christianacare.org\/publications\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/research.christianacare.org\/publications\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=2620"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/research.christianacare.org\/publications\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2620\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/research.christianacare.org\/publications\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=2620"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/research.christianacare.org\/publications\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=2620"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/research.christianacare.org\/publications\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=2620"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}