• 文献检索
  • 文档翻译
  • 深度研究
  • 学术资讯
  • Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件
  • 邀请有礼
  • 套餐&价格
  • 历史记录
应用&插件
Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件浏览器插件Mac 客户端Windows 客户端微信小程序
定价
高级版会员购买积分包购买API积分包
服务
文献检索文档翻译深度研究API 文档MCP 服务
关于我们
关于 Suppr公司介绍联系我们用户协议隐私条款
关注我们

Suppr 超能文献

核心技术专利:CN118964589B侵权必究
粤ICP备2023148730 号-1Suppr @ 2026

文献检索

告别复杂PubMed语法,用中文像聊天一样搜索,搜遍4000万医学文献。AI智能推荐,让科研检索更轻松。

立即免费搜索

文件翻译

保留排版,准确专业,支持PDF/Word/PPT等文件格式,支持 12+语言互译。

免费翻译文档

深度研究

AI帮你快速写综述,25分钟生成高质量综述,智能提取关键信息,辅助科研写作。

立即免费体验

普通人群与结直肠癌患者一级亲属对饮食干预反应的差异。

Differences in response to a dietary intervention between the general population and first-degree relatives of colorectal cancer patients.

作者信息

McClish Donna, Carcaise-Edinboro Patrica, Esinhart Hali, Wilson Diane Baer, Bean Melanie K

机构信息

Department of Biostatistics and Massey Cancer Center, Virginia Commonwealth University, Richmond, VA.

Department of Health Administration, Virginia Commonwealth University, Richmond, VA.

出版信息

J Nutr Educ Behav. 2014 Sep-Oct;46(5):376-83. doi: 10.1016/j.jneb.2014.02.015. Epub 2014 Apr 17.

DOI:10.1016/j.jneb.2014.02.015
PMID:24746549
原文链接:https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4165655/
Abstract

OBJECTIVE

To determine whether response to a dietary intervention is greater among people with family history of colorectal cancer (CRC) compared with a general population.

DESIGN

Cohort study examining participants from 2 related studies.

SETTING

Rural Virginia.

PARTICIPANTS

Seventy people with first-degree relatives with CRC and 113 participants from the intervention arm of a trial in the general population.

INTERVENTION

Both studies implemented a low-intensity intervention delivered via telephone and mail, including low-literacy self-help booklets and personalized dietary feedback.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Fat, fiber, and fruit and vegetable behavior.

ANALYSIS

Propensity score matching controlled for confounders. Mixed-model ANOVAs compared samples; mediation by perceived cancer risk was assessed.

RESULTS

Participants in both groups significantly improved fat, fiber, and fruit and vegetable behavior at 1-month follow-up; there was significantly greater improvement in the general population sample. Cancer risk perception did not mediate the relationship between study sample and dietary change.

CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS

Contrary to expectations, first-degree relatives of CRC patients did not respond better to a dietary intervention than the general population, nor was risk perception related to dietary change. Given the role of diet in CRC risk, additional research should investigate targeted strategies to improve dietary intakes of people at higher cancer risk.

摘要

目的

确定与普通人群相比,结直肠癌(CRC)家族史人群对饮食干预的反应是否更强。

设计

对两项相关研究中的参与者进行队列研究。

地点

弗吉尼亚州农村地区。

参与者

70名有CRC一级亲属的人和113名来自普通人群试验干预组的参与者。

干预措施

两项研究均实施了通过电话和邮件进行的低强度干预,包括低识字率自助手册和个性化饮食反馈。

主要观察指标

脂肪、纤维以及水果和蔬菜的摄入行为。

分析

倾向得分匹配法控制混杂因素。混合模型方差分析比较样本;评估感知癌症风险的中介作用。

结果

两组参与者在1个月随访时脂肪、纤维以及水果和蔬菜的摄入行为均有显著改善;普通人群样本的改善更为显著。癌症风险感知并未介导研究样本与饮食变化之间的关系。

结论与启示

与预期相反,CRC患者的一级亲属对饮食干预的反应并不比普通人群更好,且风险感知与饮食变化无关。鉴于饮食在CRC风险中的作用,进一步研究应探讨针对性策略,以改善癌症风险较高人群的饮食摄入量。

相似文献

1
Differences in response to a dietary intervention between the general population and first-degree relatives of colorectal cancer patients.普通人群与结直肠癌患者一级亲属对饮食干预反应的差异。
J Nutr Educ Behav. 2014 Sep-Oct;46(5):376-83. doi: 10.1016/j.jneb.2014.02.015. Epub 2014 Apr 17.
2
Fruit and vegetable dietary behavior in response to a low-intensity dietary intervention: the rural physician cancer prevention project.低强度饮食干预下的果蔬饮食行为:乡村医生癌症预防项目
J Rural Health. 2008 Summer;24(3):299-305. doi: 10.1111/j.1748-0361.2008.00172.x.
3
A randomized trial of tailoring and motivational interviewing to promote fruit and vegetable consumption for cancer prevention and control.一项旨在通过定制和动机访谈来促进水果和蔬菜消费以预防和控制癌症的随机试验。
Ann Behav Med. 2009 Oct;38(2):71-85. doi: 10.1007/s12160-009-9140-5.
4
Randomized trial of a low-intensity dietary intervention in rural residents: the Rural Physician Cancer Prevention Project.农村居民低强度饮食干预随机试验:农村医生癌症预防项目
Am J Prev Med. 2005 Feb;28(2):162-8. doi: 10.1016/j.amepre.2004.10.017.
5
Psychosocial correlates of healthful diets among male auto workers.男性汽车工人健康饮食的社会心理关联因素。
Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev. 1998 Feb;7(2):119-26.
6
CanPrevent: a telephone-delivered intervention to reduce multiple behavioural risk factors for colorectal cancer.CanPrevent:一种通过电话提供的干预措施,以降低结直肠癌的多种行为风险因素。
BMC Cancer. 2012 Nov 27;12:560. doi: 10.1186/1471-2407-12-560.
7
Tailored, iterative, printed dietary feedback is as effective as group education in improving dietary behaviours: results from a randomised control trial in middle-aged adults with cardiovascular risk factors.个体化、迭代式、打印版饮食反馈与群体教育在改善饮食行为方面同样有效:心血管风险因素的中年成年人中一项随机对照试验的结果。
Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act. 2011 May 20;8:43. doi: 10.1186/1479-5868-8-43.
8
Mediators of fruit and vegetable consumption among colorectal cancer survivors.结直肠癌幸存者水果和蔬菜消费的影响因素。
J Cancer Surviv. 2010 Jun;4(2):149-58. doi: 10.1007/s11764-010-0116-z. Epub 2010 Feb 26.
9
Storytelling for promoting colorectal cancer screening among underserved Latina women: a randomized pilot study.通过讲故事促进服务不足的拉丁裔女性进行结直肠癌筛查:一项随机试点研究。
Cancer Control. 2009 Jan;16(1):79-87. doi: 10.1177/107327480901600112.
10
The polyp prevention trial continued follow-up study: no effect of a low-fat, high-fiber, high-fruit, and -vegetable diet on adenoma recurrence eight years after randomization.息肉预防试验持续随访研究:随机分组八年后,低脂、高纤维、高水果和蔬菜饮食对腺瘤复发无影响。
Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev. 2007 Sep;16(9):1745-52. doi: 10.1158/1055-9965.EPI-07-0127.

引用本文的文献

1
Feasibility and Acceptability of a Mobile-Assisted Screening and Brief Intervention for Multiple Health Behaviors in Medical Settings.移动辅助筛查及简短干预在医疗环境中针对多种健康行为的可行性与可接受性
J Prim Care Community Health. 2024 Jan-Dec;15:21501319241303604. doi: 10.1177/21501319241303604.
2
Mapping psychosocial interventions in familial colorectal cancer: a rapid systematic review.家族性结直肠癌的心理社会干预措施映射:快速系统评价。
BMC Cancer. 2022 Jan 3;22(1):8. doi: 10.1186/s12885-021-09086-8.
3
Genoprotective activities of plant natural substances in cancer and chemopreventive strategies in the context of 3P medicine.3P医学背景下植物天然物质在癌症中的基因保护活性及化学预防策略
EPMA J. 2020 May 29;11(2):261-287. doi: 10.1007/s13167-020-00210-5. eCollection 2020 Jun.

本文引用的文献

1
Do individuals with a family history of colorectal cancer adhere to medical recommendations for the prevention of colorectal cancer?有结直肠癌家族史的个体是否遵循预防结直肠癌的医学建议?
Fam Cancer. 2013 Dec;12(4):629-37. doi: 10.1007/s10689-013-9627-x.
2
Worry and risk perceptions as independent and interacting predictors of health protective behaviors.担忧和风险感知作为独立和相互作用的健康保护行为预测因子。
J Health Commun. 2013;18(4):397-409. doi: 10.1080/10810730.2012.727954. Epub 2012 Dec 28.
3
Socioeconomic, Rural-Urban, and Racial Inequalities in US Cancer Mortality: Part I-All Cancers and Lung Cancer and Part II-Colorectal, Prostate, Breast, and Cervical Cancers.美国癌症死亡率中的社会经济、城乡及种族不平等:第一部分——所有癌症和肺癌,第二部分——结直肠癌、前列腺癌、乳腺癌和宫颈癌
J Cancer Epidemiol. 2011;2011:107497. doi: 10.1155/2011/107497. Epub 2012 Feb 14.
4
Changes in risk perceptions in relation to self-reported colorectal cancer screening among first-degree relatives of colorectal cancer cases enrolled in a randomized trial.与参加随机试验的结直肠癌病例一级亲属报告的结直肠癌筛查相关的风险认知变化。
Health Psychol. 2011 Jul;30(4):481-91. doi: 10.1037/a0024288.
5
State disparities in colorectal cancer mortality patterns in the United States.美国结直肠癌死亡率模式的州际差异。
Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev. 2011 Jul;20(7):1296-302. doi: 10.1158/1055-9965.EPI-11-0250.
6
Vital signs: Colorectal cancer screening, incidence, and mortality--United States, 2002-2010.生命体征:2002-2010 年美国结直肠癌筛查、发病和死亡情况。
MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 2011 Jul 8;60(26):884-9.
7
Comparing screening and preventive health behaviors in two study populations: daughters of mothers with breast cancer and women responding to the behavioral risk factor surveillance system survey.比较两个研究人群中的筛查和预防保健行为:乳腺癌母亲的女儿和对行为风险因素监测系统调查做出回应的女性。
J Womens Health (Larchmt). 2011 Aug;20(8):1201-6. doi: 10.1089/jwh.2010.2256. Epub 2011 Jun 14.
8
Colonoscopic findings in first-degree relatives of patients with colorectal cancer: a population-based screening program.结直肠癌患者一级亲属的结肠镜检查结果:一项基于人群的筛查计划。
Gastrointest Endosc. 2011 Mar;73(3):527-534.e2. doi: 10.1016/j.gie.2010.12.025.
9
Perception of Colorectal Cancer Risk does not Enhance Participation in Screening.对结直肠癌风险的认知并不会增强筛查的参与度。
Therap Adv Gastroenterol. 2008 Nov;1(3):157-67. doi: 10.1177/1756283X08097776.
10
A synopsis of the Joint Environment and Human Health Programme in the UK.英国环境与人类健康联合计划概述。
Environ Health. 2009 Dec 21;8 Suppl 1(Suppl 1):S1. doi: 10.1186/1476-069X-8-S1-S1.