Suppr超能文献

激励与教育测试干预措施(TIME):一项旨在改善结直肠癌筛查的多层次干预措施。

Testing Interventions to Motivate and Educate (TIME): A multi-level intervention to improve colorectal cancer screening.

作者信息

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

机构信息

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.

出版信息

Prev Med Rep. 2015 Jan 1;2:306-313. doi: 10.1016/j.pmedr.2015.04.010.

Abstract

OBJECTIVE

To test the effectiveness of a colorectal cancer (CRC) screening intervention directed at three levels (clinic, provider, patient) in a primary care setting.

METHOD

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.

RESULTS

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).

CONCLUSION

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.

摘要

目的

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。

方法

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。

结果

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)。

结论

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。

https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/4100/4721360/2609dbc5712c/gr1.jpg

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