Krok-Schoen Jessica L, Young Gregory S, Pennell Michael L, Reiter Paul L, Katz Mira L, Post Douglas M, Tatum Cathy M, Paskett Electra D
Comprehensive Cancer Center, The Ohio State University, 1590 N. High St., Suite 525, Columbus, Ohio, 43201 USA.
Center for Biostatistics, The Ohio State University, 2012 Kenny Rd., Columbus, OH 43221, USA.
Prev Med Rep. 2015 Jan 1;2:306-313. doi: 10.1016/j.pmedr.2015.04.010.
To test the effectiveness of a colorectal cancer (CRC) screening intervention directed at three levels (clinic, provider, patient) in a primary care setting.
We conducted a group randomized trial (Clinical Trials registration no. NCT01568151) among 10 primary care clinics in Columbus, Ohio that were randomized to a study condition (intervention or usual care). We determined the effect of a multi-level, stepped behavioral intervention on receipt of a CRC screening test among average-risk patients from these clinics over the study period.
Patients (n=527) who were outside of CRC screening recommendations were recruited. Overall, 35.4% of participants in the intervention clinics had received CRC screening by the end of the study compared to 35.1% of participants who were in the usual care clinics. Time to CRC screening was also similar across arms (HR=0.97, 95% CI=0.65-1.45).
The multi-level intervention was not effective in increasing CRC screening among participants who needed a test, perhaps due to low participation of patients in the stepped intervention. Future studies utilizing evidence-based strategies to encourage CRC screening are needed.
在初级保健环境中测试针对三个层面(诊所、医疗服务提供者、患者)的结直肠癌(CRC)筛查干预措施的有效性。
我们在俄亥俄州哥伦布市的10家初级保健诊所中进行了一项群组随机试验(临床试验注册号:NCT01568151),这些诊所被随机分配到一种研究条件(干预或常规护理)。我们确定了在研究期间,一种多层次、逐步推进的行为干预措施对这些诊所中平均风险患者接受CRC筛查检测的影响。
招募了未遵循CRC筛查建议的患者(n = 527)。总体而言,到研究结束时,干预诊所中35.4%的参与者接受了CRC筛查,而常规护理诊所中的这一比例为35.1%。各分组之间进行CRC筛查的时间也相似(风险比=0.97,95%置信区间=0.65 - 1.45)。
多层次干预措施在增加需要检测的参与者的CRC筛查方面无效,这可能是由于患者对逐步干预的参与度较低。未来需要开展利用循证策略鼓励CRC筛查的研究。