Diese Seite wurde automatisch übersetzt und die Genauigkeit der Übersetzung wird nicht garantiert. Bitte wende dich an die englische Version für einen Quelltext.

Comparing Interventions to Increase Colorectal Cancer Screening

16. August 2021 aktualisiert von: Susan Rawl, Indiana University

Comparing Interventions to Increase Colorectal Cancer Screening in Low-Income and Minority Patients

The purpose of this study is to test different approaches to help people understand the purpose of colorectal cancer (CRC) screening, two screening test options available, and the barriers to screening so they can make informed decisions about CRC screening. Participants will be randomly assigned to one of three groups: (1) one group will receive a tailored digital video disc (DVD) in the mail; (2) another group will receive the mailed DVD plus telephone calls from a patient navigator; and (3) the third group will receive the care normally provided by the healthcare system's endoscopy department.

The investigators hypothesize the following: (1) participants who receive the tailored DVD plus the patient navigation intervention will have higher rates of CRC screening with the fecal immunochemical test (FIT), colonoscopy, or either screening test compared to those who receive the tailored DVD alone; (2) participants who receive either intervention (DVD only or DVD plus patient navigation) will have higher rates of CRC screening with FIT, colonoscopy, or either screening test than those who receive usual care; and (3) participants who receive either intervention who complete colonoscopy will have better quality of bowel preparation, less anxiety about the procedure, and greater satisfaction with the colonoscopy experience than those who receive usual care.

Studienübersicht

Status

Abgeschlossen

Bedingungen

Intervention / Behandlung

Detaillierte Beschreibung

Colorectal cancer (CRC) often can be prevented through regular screening and although multiple screening tests are available, colonoscopy is often the only screening test offered to patients. Unfortunately, up to half of people in some hospitals who receive a recommendation and are scheduled for colonoscopy do not complete the test. Reasons for not completing colonoscopy include lack of awareness of the need for, and benefits of, screening, fear of pain, fear of finding cancer, unpleasantness of the bowel preparation, cost, transportation issues, and the unwillingness to undergo an invasive test in the absence of symptoms. The process of bowel cleansing is one of the most challenging aspects of having a colonoscopy. Interventions that improve patients' knowledge about CRC screening, including test options other than colonoscopy, enhance access, improve skills needed to complete CRC screening, and reduce barriers will lead to greater numbers of people being screened. Patient navigation and computer tailored interventions have been shown to be effective approaches to increase CRC and other cancer screening but there is no evidence of their comparative effectiveness. The purpose of this study is to compare two health system-based interventions, with one another and with usual care, to increase completion rates among a diverse sample of patients. The investigators will enroll an ethnically diverse group of 450 men and women aged 50-75,or aged 45-75 if African American, who are at average risk for CRC and were referred and scheduled for colonoscopy at one endoscopy department but canceled or did not attend their scheduled appointment. Participants will be randomized to receive: (1) a mailed tailored digital video disc (DVD) alone; 2) the mailed tailored DVD plus a telephone-based Patient Navigator; or 3) usual care. Data will be collected at baseline, at 6 months and at 9 months post-baseline. Interviews to assess receipt, viewing, and satisfaction with the tailored DVD will be conducted 2 weeks after mailing. Satisfaction with the patient navigator will be assessed at 6 months. Multivariable logistic regression analyses will be used to test the interventions' effects on CRC screening test completion and, for those who complete colonoscopy, quality of bowel preparation. The investigators will also examine whether these interventions change knowledge about CRC and screening as well as health beliefs (perceived risk, perceived benefits, barriers, and self-efficacy) about screening. From this study, the investigators will learn how effective these two standardized, easy to disseminate health system-based interventions are compared to each other and to usual care. If the interventions are found to be equally effective, or differentially effective for different subgroups of patients, healthcare systems may consider implementing one or both of these interventions in their settings.

Studientyp

Interventionell

Einschreibung (Tatsächlich)

371

Phase

  • Unzutreffend

Kontakte und Standorte

Dieser Abschnitt enthält die Kontaktdaten derjenigen, die die Studie durchführen, und Informationen darüber, wo diese Studie durchgeführt wird.

Studienorte

    • Indiana
      • Indianapolis, Indiana, Vereinigte Staaten, 46202
        • Eskenazi Health
      • Indianapolis, Indiana, Vereinigte Staaten, 46202
        • Indiana University School of Nursing

Teilnahmekriterien

Forscher suchen nach Personen, die einer bestimmten Beschreibung entsprechen, die als Auswahlkriterien bezeichnet werden. Einige Beispiele für diese Kriterien sind der allgemeine Gesundheitszustand einer Person oder frühere Behandlungen.

Zulassungskriterien

Studienberechtigtes Alter

45 Jahre bis 75 Jahre (Erwachsene, Älterer Erwachsener)

Akzeptiert gesunde Freiwillige

Ja

Studienberechtigte Geschlechter

Alle

Beschreibung

Inclusion Criteria:

  • Referred for a screening colonoscopy that was not done (i.e, canceled or no show)

Exclusion Criteria:

  • Unable to speak, read, and write English
  • Personal history of CRC or polyps
  • Personal history of conditions that place participants at high risk for CRC such as ulcerative colitis, Crohn's disease, or known hereditary syndromes such as familial adenomatous polyposis or hereditary nonpolyposis colorectal cancer
  • Family history of CRC which increases the participant's risk for CRC
  • Advised by a health care provider to not have a colonoscopy due to the participant's health
  • Speech impairment
  • Hearing impairment
  • Cognitive impairment
  • Vision impairment

Studienplan

Dieser Abschnitt enthält Einzelheiten zum Studienplan, einschließlich des Studiendesigns und der Messung der Studieninhalte.

Wie ist die Studie aufgebaut?

Designdetails

  • Hauptzweck: Screening
  • Zuteilung: Zufällig
  • Interventionsmodell: Parallele Zuordnung
  • Maskierung: Keine (Offenes Etikett)

Waffen und Interventionen

Teilnehmergruppe / Arm
Intervention / Behandlung
Aktiver Komparator: Tailored DVD
Tailored digital video disc (DVD)
A 20 minute tailored DVD titled "Approaches to Colon Testing" is viewed by participants. It is designed to encourage CRC screening uptake by colonoscopy or FIT by increasing the participant's CRC knowledge and beliefs about the benefits of screening, reducing barriers to screening, and increasing self-efficacy for screening by demonstrating how these tests are performed.
Aktiver Komparator: Tailored DVD + Patient Navigation
Tailored digital video disc (DVD) plus Patient Navigation by a population health nurse in the healthcare system
A 20 minute tailored DVD titled "Approaches to Colon Testing" is viewed by participants. It is designed to encourage CRC screening uptake by colonoscopy or FIT by increasing the participant's CRC knowledge and beliefs about the benefits of screening, reducing barriers to screening, and increasing self-efficacy for screening by demonstrating how these tests are performed.
Participants talk by telephone with a Patient Navigator who is a trained nurse. The Patient Navigator determines if participants viewed the tailored DVD and answers any questions about the content. The Patient Navigator then provides telephone counseling on CRC and screening tests to: (1) increase knowledge, perceived benefits, and self-efficacy; (2) reduce barriers; (3) enhance access; and (4) provide social support.
Kein Eingriff: Usual Care
Care normally provided by a nurse in the endoscopy department of the healthcare system

Was misst die Studie?

Primäre Ergebnismessungen

Ergebnis Maßnahme
Maßnahmenbeschreibung
Zeitfenster
Participants Completing CRC Screening Per Electronic Medical Record Documentation
Zeitfenster: 12 months post-baseline interview
Number of participants completing CRC screening by any test (defined as colonoscopy or FIT) is measured by electronic medical record review. Dates that participants had a colonoscopy and dates of FIT analysis are extracted from the electronic medical record.
12 months post-baseline interview

Sekundäre Ergebnismessungen

Ergebnis Maßnahme
Maßnahmenbeschreibung
Zeitfenster
Participants Completing Colonoscopy Per Electronic Medical Record Documentation
Zeitfenster: 12 months post-baseline interview
Number of participants completing a colonoscopy is measured by electronic medical record review (EMR). Dates that participants completed a colonoscopy are extracted from the EMR.
12 months post-baseline interview
Bowel Preparation Quality Rating Using Boston Bowel Preparation Scale
Zeitfenster: 12 months post-baseline interview
Participants quality of bowel preparation is measured by the endoscopist during their colonoscopy procedure using the Boston Bowel Preparation Scale (BBPS). BBPS scores the total quality on a 10 point scale from 0-9. Higher scores indicate better quality of bowel preparation.
12 months post-baseline interview
Participants With Adequate Quality of Bowel Preparation Per Modified Aronchick Rating Scale
Zeitfenster: 12 months post-baseline interview
Participants quality of bowel preparation is measured by the endoscopist during their colonoscopy using a modification of the Aronchick rating scale. The Aronchick scale rates quality as 1=excellent, 2=good, 3=fair, or 4=poor. Some endoscopists choose to grade quality more generally as adequate vs. inadequate. To accommodate this variation, bowel preparation ratings have been dichotomized into adequate (excellent, good, fair, or adequate ratings) vs. inadequate (poor or inadequate ratings). Adequate is scored as 1 and indicates better quality of bowel preparation than inadequate which is scored as 0.
12 months post-baseline interview
Colonoscopy-Related Procedural Anxiety for Participants Completing a Colonoscopy
Zeitfenster: 12 months post-baseline interview
Colonoscopy-related procedural anxiety is measured by self-report using the 6-item short form of the State Anxiety Scale of the State-Trait Anxiety Inventory. Each item is scored from 1 to 4 (1=not at all; 4=very much so) with higher scores indicating greater anxiety.
12 months post-baseline interview
Satisfaction With Colonoscopy Experience
Zeitfenster: 12 months post-baseline interview
Satisfaction with the colonoscopy experience is measured by self-report using a single item developed by the research team. Satisfaction is rated from 1 to 4 where 1=not at all satisfied, 2=a little satisfied, 3=mostly satisfied, and 4=completely satisfied. Scores range from 1 to 4 with higher scores indicating greater satisfaction.
12 months post-baseline interview
Participants Completing a Fecal Immunochemical Test (FIT) Per Electronic Medical Record Documentation
Zeitfenster: 12 months post-baseline interview
Number of participants completing a FIT is measured by electronic medical record review (EMR). Dates of FIT analysis are extracted from the EMR.
12 months post-baseline interview
Participants Who Self-Reported Completing CRC Screening
Zeitfenster: 6-9 months post-baseline interview
Number of participants who reported completing CRC screening by any test (defined as colonoscopy or FIT) during the 6 or 9 month post-baseline telephone interview.
6-9 months post-baseline interview
Participants Who Self-Reported Completing a Colonoscopy
Zeitfenster: 6-9 months post-baseline interview
Number of participants who reported completing a colonoscopy during the 6 or 9 month post-baseline telephone interview.
6-9 months post-baseline interview
Participants Who Self-Reported Completing a Fecal Immunochemical Test (FIT)
Zeitfenster: 6-9 months post-baseline interview
Number of participants who reported completing a FIT during the 6 or 9 month post-baseline telephone interview.
6-9 months post-baseline interview
Change in Knowledge of CRC and Screening
Zeitfenster: 6 months post-baseline interview
Change from baseline in knowledge of CRC and screening is measured at 6 months by self-report using a 9-item multidimensional scale. Each item is scored as 1=correct or 0=incorrect and summed to yield a scale score. Scores range from 0 to 9 with higher summated scores indicating greater knowledge of CRC and screening tests. The mean of the 9 items is calculated at baseline and 6 months post-baseline. Change from baseline equals the mean at 6 months minus the mean at baseline. Change can range from -9 to 9 with positive values indicating an increase in knowledge.
6 months post-baseline interview
Change in Perceived Risk for CRC
Zeitfenster: 6 months post-baseline interview
Change from baseline in perceived risk for CRC is measured by self-report at 6 months using a 3-item scale. We ask participants how likely it is that they will get colon cancer sometime during their lifetime, within the next 10 years, and within the next 5 years. Each item is scored from 1 to 4 (1=very unlikely; 4=very likely). Higher scores indicate a higher perceived risk for getting CRC. The mean of the 3 items is calculated at baseline and 6 months. Change in perceived risk equals the mean at 6 months minus the mean at baseline. Change can range from -3 to 3 with positive values indicating an increase in perceived risk for getting CRC.
6 months post-baseline interview
Change in Colonoscopy-Related Procedural Anxiety Regardless of Whether or Not Participants Had a Colonoscopy
Zeitfenster: 6 months post-baseline interview
Change from baseline in colonoscopy-related procedural anxiety is measured at 6 months by self-report using the 6-item short form of the State Anxiety Scale of the State-Trait Anxiety Inventory. Each item is scored from 1 to 4 (1=not at all; 4=very much so) with higher scores indicating greater anxiety. The mean of the 6 items is calculated at baseline and 6 months post-baseline. Change from baseline is the mean at 6 months minus the mean at baseline. Change can range from -3 to 3 with positive values indicating an increase in anxiety.
6 months post-baseline interview
Change in Perceived Benefits of CRC Screening by Colonoscopy
Zeitfenster: 6 months post-baseline interview
Change from baseline in perceived benefits of CRC screening by colonoscopy is measured at 6 months by self-report using a 4-item scale. Each item is scored from 1 to 4 (1=strongly disagree; 4=strongly agree) and the mean of the 4 items calculated. Higher mean scores indicate greater perceived benefits of screening by colonoscopy. Change in perceived benefits equals the mean at 6 months minus the mean at baseline. Change can range from -3 to 3 with positive values indicating an increase in perceived benefits of screening by colonoscopy.
6 months post-baseline interview
Change in Perceived Barriers to CRC Screening by Colonoscopy
Zeitfenster: 6 months post-baseline interview
Change from baseline in perceived barriers to CRC screening by colonoscopy is measured at 6 months by self-report using a 16-item scale. Each item is scored from 1 to 4 (1=strongly disagree; 4=strongly agree) and the mean of the 16 items calculated. Higher mean scores indicate greater perceived barriers to screening by colonoscopy. Change in perceived barriers equals the mean at 6 months minus the mean at baseline. Change can range from -3 to 3 with negative values indicating a decrease in perceived barriers to screening by colonoscopy.
6 months post-baseline interview
Change in Perceived Self-Efficacy for CRC Screening by Colonoscopy
Zeitfenster: 6 months post-baseline interview
Change from baseline in perceived self-efficacy for colonoscopy is measured at 6 months by self-report using an 11-item scale. Each item is scored from 1 to 4 (1=not at all sure; 4=very sure) and the mean of the 11 items calculated. Higher mean scores indicate greater perceived self-efficacy for screening by colonoscopy. Change in perceived self-efficacy equals the mean at 6 months minus the mean at baseline. Change can range from -3 to 3 with positive values indicating an increase in perceived self-efficacy for screening by colonoscopy.
6 months post-baseline interview
Change in Perceived Benefits of CRC Screening by FIT
Zeitfenster: 6 months post-baseline interview
Change from baseline in perceived benefits of CRC screening by FIT is measured at 6 months by self-report using a 3-item scale. Each item is scored from 1 to 4 (1=strongly disagree; 4=strongly agree) and the mean of the 3 items calculated. Higher mean scores indicate greater perceived benefits of screening by FIT. Change in perceived benefits equals the mean at 6 months minus the mean at baseline. Change can range from -3 to 3 with positive values indicating an increase in perceived benefits for screening by FIT.
6 months post-baseline interview
Change in Perceived Barriers to CRC Screening by FIT
Zeitfenster: 6 months post-baseline interview
Change from baseline in perceived barriers to CRC screening by FIT is measured at 6 months by self-report using a 10-item scale. Each item is scored from 1 to 4 (1=strongly disagree; 4=strongly agree) and the mean of the 10 items calculated. Higher mean scores indicate greater perceived barriers to screening by FIT. Change in perceived barriers equals the mean at 6 months minus the mean at baseline. Change can range from -3 to 3 with negative values indicating a decrease in perceived barriers to screening by FIT.
6 months post-baseline interview
Change in Perceived Self-Efficacy for CRC Screening by FIT
Zeitfenster: 6 months post-baseline interview
Change from baseline in perceived self-efficacy for CRC screening by FIT is measured at 6 months by self-report using a 7-item scale. Each item is scored from 1 to 4 (1=not at all sure; 4=very sure) and the mean of the 7 items calculated. Higher mean scores indicate greater perceived self-efficacy for screening by FIT. Change in perceived self-efficacy equals the mean at 6 months minus the mean at baseline. Change can range from -3 to 3 with positive values indicating an increase in perceived self-efficacy for screening by FIT.
6 months post-baseline interview

Mitarbeiter und Ermittler

Hier finden Sie Personen und Organisationen, die an dieser Studie beteiligt sind.

Sponsor

Mitarbeiter

Ermittler

  • Hauptermittler: Susan M Rawl, PhD,RN, Indiana University

Studienaufzeichnungsdaten

Diese Daten verfolgen den Fortschritt der Übermittlung von Studienaufzeichnungen und zusammenfassenden Ergebnissen an ClinicalTrials.gov. Studienaufzeichnungen und gemeldete Ergebnisse werden von der National Library of Medicine (NLM) überprüft, um sicherzustellen, dass sie bestimmten Qualitätskontrollstandards entsprechen, bevor sie auf der öffentlichen Website veröffentlicht werden.

Haupttermine studieren

Studienbeginn (Tatsächlich)

26. Juli 2017

Primärer Abschluss (Tatsächlich)

21. Oktober 2020

Studienabschluss (Tatsächlich)

21. Oktober 2020

Studienanmeldedaten

Zuerst eingereicht

22. Juni 2017

Zuerst eingereicht, das die QC-Kriterien erfüllt hat

23. Juni 2017

Zuerst gepostet (Tatsächlich)

27. Juni 2017

Studienaufzeichnungsaktualisierungen

Letztes Update gepostet (Tatsächlich)

13. September 2021

Letztes eingereichtes Update, das die QC-Kriterien erfüllt

16. August 2021

Zuletzt verifiziert

1. August 2021

Mehr Informationen

Begriffe im Zusammenhang mit dieser Studie

Andere Studien-ID-Nummern

  • 1605880142
  • IHS-1507-31333 (Andere Zuschuss-/Finanzierungsnummer: Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute (PCORI))

Plan für individuelle Teilnehmerdaten (IPD)

Planen Sie, individuelle Teilnehmerdaten (IPD) zu teilen?

JA

Beschreibung des IPD-Plans

A copy of the complete, cleaned, de-identified data set used to conduct the final analyses will be made available in SAS and SPSS formats.

IPD-Sharing-Zeitrahmen

Available by September 30, 2021

IPD-Sharing-Zugriffskriterien

Request in writing to the the study's Principal Investigator, Dr. Susan Rawl

Art der unterstützenden IPD-Freigabeinformationen

  • STUDIENPROTOKOLL
  • SAFT

Arzneimittel- und Geräteinformationen, Studienunterlagen

Studiert ein von der US-amerikanischen FDA reguliertes Arzneimittelprodukt

Nein

Studiert ein von der US-amerikanischen FDA reguliertes Geräteprodukt

Nein

Diese Informationen wurden ohne Änderungen direkt von der Website clinicaltrials.gov abgerufen. Wenn Sie Ihre Studiendaten ändern, entfernen oder aktualisieren möchten, wenden Sie sich bitte an register@clinicaltrials.gov. Sobald eine Änderung auf clinicaltrials.gov implementiert wird, wird diese automatisch auch auf unserer Website aktualisiert .

Klinische Studien zur Tailored DVD

Suchen Sie nach ähnlichen Studien