• 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

美加爱护航:在三种不同临床环境下,比较三种循证干预措施在少数民族群体中促进结直肠癌筛查的效果。

Mi-CARE: Comparing Three Evidence-Based Interventions to Promote Colorectal Cancer Screening among Ethnic Minorities within Three Different Clinical Contexts.

机构信息

National Institutes of Health, 9000 Rockville Pike, Bethesda, MD 20892, USA.

VCU Massey Comprehensive Cancer Center, 417 N 11th St., Richmond, VA 23219, USA.

出版信息

Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2023 Nov 10;20(22):7049. doi: 10.3390/ijerph20227049.

DOI:10.3390/ijerph20227049
PMID:37998280
原文链接:https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10671818/
Abstract

Multiple evidence-based interventions (EBIs) have been developed to improve the completion of colorectal cancer (CRC) screening within Federally Qualified Health Centers (FQHCs) and other safety net settings in marginalized communities. Little effort has been made, however, to evaluate their relative effectiveness across different clinical contexts and populations. To this end, we tested the relative effectiveness of three EBIs (mailed birthday cards, lay navigation, and provider-delivered education) among a convenience sample of 1252 patients (aged 50-75 years old, who were due for CRC screening and scheduled for a visit at one of three clinics within a network of Federally Qualified Health Centers (FQHCs) in the United States. To be eligible for the study, patients had to identify as African American (AA) or Latino American (LA). We compared the effects of the three EBIs on CRC screening completion using logistic regression. Overall, 20% of the study population, an increase from a baseline of 13%, completed CRC screening. Clinical demographics appeared to influence the effectiveness of the EBIs. Mailed birthday reminders appeared to be the most effective within the multi-ethnic clinic ( = 0.03), provider-delivered education within the predominantly LA clinic ( = 0.02), and lay navigation within the predominantly AA clinic ( = 0.03). These findings highlight the importance of understanding clinical context when selecting which evidence-based interventions to deploy.

摘要

已经开发了多种基于证据的干预措施 (EBIs),以提高在合格联邦卫生中心 (FQHC) 和边缘化社区其他安全网环境中完成结直肠癌 (CRC) 筛查的比例。然而,很少有人努力评估它们在不同临床环境和人群中的相对效果。为此,我们在一个便利样本的 1252 名患者(年龄在 50-75 岁之间,应进行 CRC 筛查并在合格联邦卫生中心网络内的三个诊所之一就诊)中测试了三种 EBI(邮寄生日贺卡、非专业人士导航和提供者提供的教育)的相对有效性。为了符合研究条件,患者必须自认为是非裔美国人 (AA) 或拉丁裔美国人 (LA)。我们使用逻辑回归比较了三种 EBI 对 CRC 筛查完成的影响。总体而言,研究人群中有 20%(比基线的 13%有所增加)完成了 CRC 筛查。临床人口统计学似乎影响了 EBI 的效果。邮寄生日提醒在多族裔诊所中似乎最有效(=0.03),提供者提供的教育在主要是 LA 的诊所中最有效(=0.02),非专业人士导航在主要是 AA 的诊所中最有效(=0.03)。这些发现强调了在选择要部署的基于证据的干预措施时了解临床背景的重要性。

https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/e0ef/10671818/a1b396d340dd/ijerph-20-07049-g001.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/e0ef/10671818/a1b396d340dd/ijerph-20-07049-g001.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/e0ef/10671818/a1b396d340dd/ijerph-20-07049-g001.jpg

相似文献

1
Mi-CARE: Comparing Three Evidence-Based Interventions to Promote Colorectal Cancer Screening among Ethnic Minorities within Three Different Clinical Contexts.美加爱护航:在三种不同临床环境下,比较三种循证干预措施在少数民族群体中促进结直肠癌筛查的效果。
Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2023 Nov 10;20(22):7049. doi: 10.3390/ijerph20227049.
2
Prescription of Controlled Substances: Benefits and Risks管制药品的处方:益处与风险
3
Mailed Outreach and Patient Navigation for Colorectal Cancer Screening Among Rural Medicaid Enrollees: A Cluster Randomized Clinical Trial.针对农村医疗补助计划参保者的结直肠癌筛查邮件外展与患者导航服务:一项整群随机临床试验
JAMA Netw Open. 2025 Mar 3;8(3):e250928. doi: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2025.0928.
4
Improving animated instructional videos for colorectal cancer screening: An application of learner verification and revision.改进结直肠癌筛查的动画教学视频:学习者验证与修订的应用
Transl Behav Med. 2025 Jan 16;15(1). doi: 10.1093/tbm/ibaf020.
5
Centralized Colorectal Cancer Screening Outreach in Federally Qualified Health Centers: A Randomized Clinical Trial.在联邦合格健康中心开展集中结直肠癌筛查外展活动:一项随机临床试验。
JAMA Netw Open. 2024 Nov 4;7(11):e2446693. doi: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2024.46693.
6
Self-Collection for Cervical Cancer Screening in a Safety-Net Setting: The PRESTIS Randomized Clinical Trial.安全网环境下宫颈癌筛查的自我采样:PRESTIS随机临床试验
JAMA Intern Med. 2025 Jun 6. doi: 10.1001/jamainternmed.2025.2971.
7
Systematic review of randomised controlled trials on interventions aimed at promoting colorectal cancer screening amongst ethnic minorities.系统评价少数民族结直肠癌筛查干预措施的随机对照试验。
Ethn Health. 2023 Jul;28(5):661-695. doi: 10.1080/13557858.2022.2139815. Epub 2022 Nov 9.
8
Multilevel socioecological determinants of colorectal cancer screening among American Indian communities in New Mexico.新墨西哥州美国印第安社区中结直肠癌筛查的多层次社会生态决定因素。
Cancer Causes Control. 2025 Apr 25. doi: 10.1007/s10552-025-01993-6.
9
Racial and ethnic disparities in fecundability: a North American preconception cohort study.生育力方面的种族和族裔差异:一项北美孕前队列研究。
Hum Reprod. 2025 Apr 17. doi: 10.1093/humrep/deaf067.
10
Interventions targeted at women to encourage the uptake of cervical screening.针对女性的干预措施,以鼓励她们接受宫颈癌筛查。
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2021 Sep 6;9(9):CD002834. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD002834.pub3.

引用本文的文献

1
Types of Racism and Health Disparities and Inequalities among Cancer Patients: An Editorial Reflection of Articles in This Special Issue of .癌症患者中的种族主义类型及健康差异和不平等:本特刊文章的社论反思
Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2024 Jun 17;21(6):785. doi: 10.3390/ijerph21060785.

本文引用的文献

1
Patient navigation across the cancer care continuum: An overview of systematic reviews and emerging literature.癌症诊疗全程中的患者导航:系统评价和新兴文献概述。
CA Cancer J Clin. 2023 Nov-Dec;73(6):565-589. doi: 10.3322/caac.21788. Epub 2023 Jun 26.
2
Cancer statistics, 2023.癌症统计数据,2023 年。
CA Cancer J Clin. 2023 Jan;73(1):17-48. doi: 10.3322/caac.21763.
3
The contribution of research to racial health equity? Blame and responsibility in navigating the status quo of anti-black systemic racism.研究对种族健康公平的贡献?在应对反黑人系统性种族主义现状中的指责与责任。
Soc Sci Med. 2023 Jan;316:115209. doi: 10.1016/j.socscimed.2022.115209. Epub 2022 Jul 9.
4
Racial and Ethnic Disparities in Colorectal Cancer Screening and Outcomes.结直肠癌筛查和结局的种族和民族差异。
Hematol Oncol Clin North Am. 2022 Jun;36(3):415-428. doi: 10.1016/j.hoc.2022.02.003. Epub 2022 Apr 30.
5
Health Inequities in LGBT People and Nursing Interventions to Reduce Them: A Systematic Review.LGBT 人群中的健康不平等与减少这些不平等的护理干预措施:系统评价。
Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2021 Nov 10;18(22):11801. doi: 10.3390/ijerph182211801.
6
Disparities in Colorectal Cancer Screening in Latinos and Non-Hispanic Whites.拉丁裔和非西班牙裔白人间的结直肠癌筛查差距。
Am J Prev Med. 2022 Feb;62(2):203-210. doi: 10.1016/j.amepre.2021.07.009. Epub 2021 Oct 11.
7
What Does It Mean to Heal From Historical Trauma?从历史创伤中痊愈意味着什么?
AMA J Ethics. 2021 Jun 1;23(6):E494-498. doi: 10.1001/amajethics.2021.494.
8
Racial and ethnic disparities in colorectal cancer incidence and mortality.结直肠癌发病率和死亡率的种族和民族差异。
Adv Cancer Res. 2021;151:197-229. doi: 10.1016/bs.acr.2021.02.007. Epub 2021 May 5.
9
Evidence-Based Interventions and Colorectal Cancer Screening Rates: The Colorectal Cancer Screening Program, 2015-2017.基于证据的干预措施与结直肠癌筛查率:结直肠癌筛查计划,2015-2017 年。
Am J Prev Med. 2021 Sep;61(3):402-409. doi: 10.1016/j.amepre.2021.03.002. Epub 2021 May 14.
10
Disparities in Early-Onset Colorectal Cancer.早发性结直肠癌的差异。
Cells. 2021 Apr 26;10(5):1018. doi: 10.3390/cells10051018.