Using a state cancer registry to recruit young breast cancer survivors and high-risk relatives: protocol of a randomized trial testing the efficacy of a targeted versus a tailored intervention to increase breast cancer screening

Maria C Katapodi, Laurel L Northouse, Ann M Schafenacker, Debra Duquette, Sonia A Duffy, David L Ronis, Beth Anderson, Nancy K Janz, Jennifer McLosky, Kara J Milliron, Sofia D Merajver, Linh M Duong, Glenn Copeland, Maria C Katapodi, Laurel L Northouse, Ann M Schafenacker, Debra Duquette, Sonia A Duffy, David L Ronis, Beth Anderson, Nancy K Janz, Jennifer McLosky, Kara J Milliron, Sofia D Merajver, Linh M Duong, Glenn Copeland

Abstract

Background: The Michigan Prevention Research Center, the University of Michigan Schools of Nursing, Public Health, and Medicine, and the Michigan Department of Community Health propose a multidisciplinary academic-clinical practice three-year project to increase breast cancer screening among young breast cancer survivors and their cancer-free female relatives at greatest risk for breast cancer.

Methods/design: The study has three specific aims: 1) Identify and survey 3,000 young breast cancer survivors (diagnosed at 20-45 years old) regarding their breast cancer screening utilization. 2) Identify and survey survivors' high-risk relatives regarding their breast cancer screening utilization. 3) Test two versions (Targeted vs. Enhanced Tailored) of an intervention to increase breast cancer screening among survivors and relatives. Following approval by human subjects review boards, 3,000 young breast cancer survivors will be identified through the Michigan Cancer Registry and mailed an invitation letter and a baseline survey. The baseline survey will obtain information on the survivors': a) current breast cancer screening status and use of genetic counseling; b) perceived barriers and facilitators to screening; c) family health history. Based on the family history information provided by survivors, we will identify up to two high-risk relatives per survivor. Young breast cancer survivors will be mailed consent forms and baseline surveys to distribute to their selected high-risk relatives. Relatives' baseline survey will obtain information on their: a) current breast cancer screening status and use of genetic counseling; and b) perceived barriers and facilitators to screening. Young breast cancer survivors and high-risk relatives will be randomized as a family unit to receive two versions of an intervention aiming to increase breast cancer screening and use of cancer genetic services. A follow-up survey will be mailed 9 months after the intervention to survivors and high-risk relatives to evaluate the efficacy of each intervention version on: a) use of breast cancer screening and genetic counseling; b) perceived barriers and facilitators to screening; c) self-efficacy in utilizing cancer genetic and screening services; d) family support related to screening; e) knowledge of breast cancer genetics; and f) satisfaction with the intervention.

Discussion: The study will enhance efforts of the state of Michigan surrounding cancer prevention, control, and public health genomics.

Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT01612338.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Age-adjusted ten-year mortality rates for breast cancer by county among women in Michigan under age 50, 2000–2009.
Figure 2
Figure 2
CONSORT diagram-flow of study participants. Est. = Estimated.
Figure 3
Figure 3
Expanded theory of planned behavior. CBE = Clinical Breast Exam.
Figure 4
Figure 4
Components of the targeted and the enhanced tailored version of the intervention. CA = Cancer.

References

    1. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention: National Program of Cancer Registries (NPCR) United States Cancer Statistics (UCSC): 1999–2008 Cancer Incidence and Mortality Data. [ ]
    1. Michigan Cancer Consortium. Michigan Cancer Consortium Screening Guidelines for Early Detection of Breast Cacner. 2009. [ ]
    1. Houssami N. Accuracy and outcomes of screening mammography in women with a personal history of early-stage breast cancer. JAMA. 2011;305:790–799. doi: 10.1001/jama.2011.188.
    1. Pharoah PDP, Day NE, Duffy S, Easton DF, Ponder BAJ. Family history and the risk of breast cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Int J Cancer. 1997;71:800–809. doi: 10.1002/(SICI)1097-0215(19970529)71:5<800::AID-IJC18>;2-B.
    1. Smith RA, Cokkinides V, Brooks D, Saslow D, Brawley OW. Cancer screening in the United States, 2010: a review of current American cancer society guidelines and issues in cancer screening. CA: Cancer J Clin. 2010;60:99–119. doi: 10.3322/caac.20063.
    1. Michigan Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System. Health Risk Behaviors in the State of Michigan: 2010 Behavioral Risk Factor Survey. 24th Annual Report. 2010. [ ]
    1. National Comprehensive Cancer Network. NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology (NCCN Guidelines TM): Genetic/Familial High-Risk Assessment: Breast and Ovarian V.1.20112011. Available from: .
    1. National Comprehensive Cancer Network. NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology (NCCN Guidelines TM): Breast Cancer Screening and Diagnosis Version 1.20112011; Version 1.2011. Available from: .
    1. Michigan Department of Community Health. Public Health Code (Excerpt) Act 368 of 1978. 1978. [ ]
    1. Michigan Department of Community Health. Vital Records & Health Statistics Section. Lansing MI: Michigan Department of Community Health; 2011.
    1. Katapodi MC, Northouse LL, Pierce P, Milliron KJ, Liu G, Merajver SD. Differences between women who pursued genetic testing for hereditary breast and ovarian cancer and their at-risk relatives who did not. Oncol Nurs Forum. 2011;38:572–581. doi: 10.1188/11.ONF.572-581.
    1. Gail MH, Constantino JP. Validating and improving models for projecting the absolute risk for breast cancer. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2001;93:334–335. doi: 10.1093/jnci/93.5.334.
    1. Claus EB, Risch N, Thompson WD. Autosomal dominant inheritance of early-onset breast cancer. Cancer. 1994;73:643–651. doi: 10.1002/1097-0142(19940201)73:3<643::AID-CNCR2820730323>;2-5.
    1. Ajzen I, Fischbein M. Understanding attitudes and predicting behavior. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall; 1980.
    1. Van Harrison R, Janz NK, Wolfe RA, Tedeschi PJ, Chernew M, Stross JK, Huang X, McMahon LFJ. Personalized targeted mailing increases mammography among long-term noncompliant medicare beneficiaries: a randomized trial. Med Care. 2003;41:375–385.
    1. Kreuter MW, Wray R. Tailored and targeted health communication: strategies for enhancing information relevance. Am J Health Behav. 2003;27:S227–S232. doi: 10.5993/AJHB.27.1.s3.6.
    1. Han HR, Lee JE, Kim J, Hedlin HK, Song H, Kim MT. A meta-analysis of intervention to promote mammography among ethnic minority women. Nurs Res. 2009;58:246–254. doi: 10.1097/NNR.0b013e3181ac0f7f.
    1. Vernon SW, McQueen A, Tiro JA, del Junco DJ. Interventions to promote repeat breast cancer screening with mammography: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2010;102:1023–1039. doi: 10.1093/jnci/djq223.
    1. Wu JH, Fung MC, Chan W, Lairson DR. Cost-effectiveness analysis of interventions to enhance mammography compliance using computer modeling (CAN*TROL) Value Health. 2004;7:175–185. doi: 10.1111/j.1524-4733.2004.72326.x.
    1. Katapodi MC, Dodd MJ, Lee KA, Facione NC. Underestimation of breast cancer risk: influence on breast cancer screening. Oncol Nurs Forum. 2009;36:306–314. doi: 10.1188/09.ONF.306-314.
    1. Katapodi MC, Aouizerat B. Do women in the community recognize hereditary and sporadic breast cancer risk factors? Oncol Nurs Forum. 2005;32:617–623. doi: 10.1188/05.ONF.617-623.
    1. Wang C, Gonzalez R, Milliron KJ, Strecher VJ, Merajver SD. Genetic counseling for BRCA1/2: a randomized controlled trial of two strategies to facilitate the education and counseling process. Am J Med Genet. 2005;134:66–73.
    1. Rakowski W, Andersen MR, Stoddard AM, Urban N, Rimer BK, Lane DS, Fox SA, Constanza ME. Confirmatory analysis of opinions regarding the pros and cons of mammography. Health Psychol. 1997;16:433–441.
    1. Stewart SL, Rakowski W, Pasick RJ. Behavioral constructs and mammography in five ethnic groups. Health Educ Behav. 2009;36:36S–54S. doi: 10.1177/1090198109338918.
    1. Katapodi MC, Facione NC, Miaskowski C, Dodd MJ, Waters C. The influence of social support on breast cancer screening in a multicultural community sample. Oncol Nurs Forum. 2002;29:845–852. doi: 10.1188/02.ONF.845-852.
    1. National Cancer Institute (NCI) Breast Cancer Risk Assessment Tool (BCRAT) 2002. [ ]
    1. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System: 2001 Survey Questions. 2002. [ ]
    1. Hintze JL. PASS 2008 User’s Guide. Kaysville, UT: Number Cruncher Statistical Software; 2008.

Source: PubMed

赞助者和合作者

医疗条件

药物干预

3
订阅