社区健康顾问大肠癌筛查教育干预对非洲裔美国初级保健患者粪便测试完成的有效性:一项实用的随机对照试验

John S Luque, Gebre-Egziabher Kiros, Matthew A Vargas, Askal Ali, Rima Tawk, Deloria R Jackson, Sabrina L Dickey, Cynthia M Harris, Temple Robinson, Bessie Duncan, Jeanne' Freeman, Clement K Gwede, Kristin Wallace
{"title":"社区健康顾问大肠癌筛查教育干预对非洲裔美国初级保健患者粪便测试完成的有效性:一项实用的随机对照试验","authors":"John S Luque, Gebre-Egziabher Kiros, Matthew A Vargas, Askal Ali, Rima Tawk, Deloria R Jackson, Sabrina L Dickey, Cynthia M Harris, Temple Robinson, Bessie Duncan, Jeanne' Freeman, Clement K Gwede, Kristin Wallace","doi":"10.1186/s44263-025-00168-4","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Colorectal cancer (CRC) disparities in incidence and mortality for African Americans compared to white Americans are explained by socioeconomic, behavioral, biological, and cultural factors in addition to lower screening rates and lower stage-specific survival. The behavioral clinical trial, \"Test Up Now Education Program\" (TUNE-UP) tested a community health advisor (CHA) intervention to increase stool-based screening in African American patients of community health centers (CHC) in Florida.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Participants who were not up to date with CRC screening were randomized to two study arms after completing a baseline survey. The two experimental arms were (1) an intervention group which received adapted \"Screen to Save\" CRC education, a tailored brochure, and CHA education; and (2) a control group which received the brochure only. Participants were surveyed at baseline, 3 months, and 12 months follow-up. The primary outcome was completion of the stool test within the last year, measured by self-report. The secondary outcomes were CRC knowledge, CRC perceived susceptibility, and CRC screening self-efficacy. For each arm, the proportion of participants who received CRC screening by 12 months was calculated. McNemar's chi-square test was used to test changes in dichotomous outcomes related to CRC screening. For outcome variables measured on a continuous scale, a paired t-test was applied to compare changes in mean values. Generalized estimating equations (GEE) models were used to compare effects of the intervention on secondary outcomes, adjusting for covariates and confounding factors.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>At 12 months (n = 93), completion of the stool test increased significantly among participants in both study arms, showing no difference; 27 out of 45 (60%) participants in the intervention group and 28 out of 48 (58%) participants in the control group (p = 0.87).The intervention had a significant effect on the two secondary outcomes of CRC knowledge (p = 0.03) and CRC perceived susceptibility (p < 0.001) after adjusting for the covariates and confounders included in the model.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>The trial demonstrated CHCs can increase CRC screening among African Americans who were not up to date in receiving recommended screening.</p><p><strong>Trial registration: </strong>The clinical trial was registered on March 11, 2020 under the identifier https://clinicaltrials.gov/study/NCT04304001 .</p>","PeriodicalId":519903,"journal":{"name":"BMC global and public health","volume":"3 1","pages":"47"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12126889/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Effectiveness of a community health advisor colorectal cancer screening educational intervention on stool test completion in an African American primary care patient population: a pragmatic randomized controlled trial.\",\"authors\":\"John S Luque, Gebre-Egziabher Kiros, Matthew A Vargas, Askal Ali, Rima Tawk, Deloria R Jackson, Sabrina L Dickey, Cynthia M Harris, Temple Robinson, Bessie Duncan, Jeanne' Freeman, Clement K Gwede, Kristin Wallace\",\"doi\":\"10.1186/s44263-025-00168-4\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Colorectal cancer (CRC) disparities in incidence and mortality for African Americans compared to white Americans are explained by socioeconomic, behavioral, biological, and cultural factors in addition to lower screening rates and lower stage-specific survival. The behavioral clinical trial, \\\"Test Up Now Education Program\\\" (TUNE-UP) tested a community health advisor (CHA) intervention to increase stool-based screening in African American patients of community health centers (CHC) in Florida.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Participants who were not up to date with CRC screening were randomized to two study arms after completing a baseline survey. The two experimental arms were (1) an intervention group which received adapted \\\"Screen to Save\\\" CRC education, a tailored brochure, and CHA education; and (2) a control group which received the brochure only. Participants were surveyed at baseline, 3 months, and 12 months follow-up. The primary outcome was completion of the stool test within the last year, measured by self-report. The secondary outcomes were CRC knowledge, CRC perceived susceptibility, and CRC screening self-efficacy. For each arm, the proportion of participants who received CRC screening by 12 months was calculated. McNemar's chi-square test was used to test changes in dichotomous outcomes related to CRC screening. For outcome variables measured on a continuous scale, a paired t-test was applied to compare changes in mean values. Generalized estimating equations (GEE) models were used to compare effects of the intervention on secondary outcomes, adjusting for covariates and confounding factors.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>At 12 months (n = 93), completion of the stool test increased significantly among participants in both study arms, showing no difference; 27 out of 45 (60%) participants in the intervention group and 28 out of 48 (58%) participants in the control group (p = 0.87).The intervention had a significant effect on the two secondary outcomes of CRC knowledge (p = 0.03) and CRC perceived susceptibility (p < 0.001) after adjusting for the covariates and confounders included in the model.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>The trial demonstrated CHCs can increase CRC screening among African Americans who were not up to date in receiving recommended screening.</p><p><strong>Trial registration: </strong>The clinical trial was registered on March 11, 2020 under the identifier https://clinicaltrials.gov/study/NCT04304001 .</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":519903,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"BMC global and public health\",\"volume\":\"3 1\",\"pages\":\"47\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-06-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12126889/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"BMC global and public health\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1186/s44263-025-00168-4\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"BMC global and public health","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s44263-025-00168-4","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:与美国白人相比,非洲裔美国人结直肠癌(CRC)发病率和死亡率的差异可以解释为社会经济、行为、生物学和文化因素,以及较低的筛查率和较低的分期特异性生存率。行为临床试验“现在测试教育计划”(TUNE-UP)测试了社区健康顾问(CHA)干预措施,以增加佛罗里达州社区健康中心(CHC)非洲裔美国患者的粪便筛查。方法:未进行结直肠癌筛查的参与者在完成基线调查后随机分为两个研究组。两个实验组分别为:(1)干预组接受改编的“筛查拯救”CRC教育、量身定制的小册子和CHA教育;(2)只收到宣传册的对照组。参与者在基线、3个月和12个月的随访中接受调查。主要结果是在过去一年内完成粪便测试,通过自我报告来衡量。次要结果为CRC知识、CRC感知易感性和CRC筛查自我效能。对于每组,计算12个月前接受结直肠癌筛查的参与者比例。McNemar卡方检验用于检验与CRC筛查相关的二分类结局的变化。对于连续测量的结果变量,采用配对t检验来比较平均值的变化。采用广义估计方程(GEE)模型比较干预对次要结局的影响,调整协变量和混杂因素。结果:在12个月时(n = 93),两个研究组的参与者完成粪便检查的次数显著增加,没有差异;干预组45例(60%)中有27例,对照组48例(58%)中有28例(p = 0.87)。干预对CRC知识(p = 0.03)和CRC感知易感性(p)这两个次要结局有显著影响。结论:该试验表明,CHCs可以增加未接受推荐筛查的非洲裔美国人的CRC筛查。试验注册:该临床试验于2020年3月11日注册,注册标识符为https://clinicaltrials.gov/study/NCT04304001。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Effectiveness of a community health advisor colorectal cancer screening educational intervention on stool test completion in an African American primary care patient population: a pragmatic randomized controlled trial.

Background: Colorectal cancer (CRC) disparities in incidence and mortality for African Americans compared to white Americans are explained by socioeconomic, behavioral, biological, and cultural factors in addition to lower screening rates and lower stage-specific survival. The behavioral clinical trial, "Test Up Now Education Program" (TUNE-UP) tested a community health advisor (CHA) intervention to increase stool-based screening in African American patients of community health centers (CHC) in Florida.

Methods: Participants who were not up to date with CRC screening were randomized to two study arms after completing a baseline survey. The two experimental arms were (1) an intervention group which received adapted "Screen to Save" CRC education, a tailored brochure, and CHA education; and (2) a control group which received the brochure only. Participants were surveyed at baseline, 3 months, and 12 months follow-up. The primary outcome was completion of the stool test within the last year, measured by self-report. The secondary outcomes were CRC knowledge, CRC perceived susceptibility, and CRC screening self-efficacy. For each arm, the proportion of participants who received CRC screening by 12 months was calculated. McNemar's chi-square test was used to test changes in dichotomous outcomes related to CRC screening. For outcome variables measured on a continuous scale, a paired t-test was applied to compare changes in mean values. Generalized estimating equations (GEE) models were used to compare effects of the intervention on secondary outcomes, adjusting for covariates and confounding factors.

Results: At 12 months (n = 93), completion of the stool test increased significantly among participants in both study arms, showing no difference; 27 out of 45 (60%) participants in the intervention group and 28 out of 48 (58%) participants in the control group (p = 0.87).The intervention had a significant effect on the two secondary outcomes of CRC knowledge (p = 0.03) and CRC perceived susceptibility (p < 0.001) after adjusting for the covariates and confounders included in the model.

Conclusions: The trial demonstrated CHCs can increase CRC screening among African Americans who were not up to date in receiving recommended screening.

Trial registration: The clinical trial was registered on March 11, 2020 under the identifier https://clinicaltrials.gov/study/NCT04304001 .

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信