Search

One of the largest disparities in cancer mortality in the United States occurs with colorectal cancer (CRC). The objectives of this multilevel two-arm intervention trial were to compare the efficacy of two interventions to promote CRC screening (CRCS) with fecal immunochemical test (FIT) and examine sociodemographic and psychosocial predictors of FIT screening. Individuals ages 50-75 (n = 326) who were not up-to-date with CRCS, could understand English or Spanish, and were at average CRC risk were recruited from two federally qualified health centers (FQHCs) in Florida. Prior to intervention, CRCS rates in the FQHCs were 27.1% and 32.9%, respectively. Study enrollment occurred April 2018-November 2019. System-level intervention components included leveraging electronic medical record (EMR) systems and delivering patient reminders. Participants were randomized to C-CARES (education+FIT) or C-CARES Plus (C-CARES+personalized coaching [for those not completing FIT within 90 days]). Primary outcome was completed FIT returned <1 year. Primary outcome analyses were performed using logistic regression. 225 participants completed FIT (69.0% [95% CI: 64.0-74.0%]), with no significant difference in FIT uptake by intervention arm (67.3% C-CARES Plus vs. 70.8% C-CARES; p = .49). FIT uptake was significantly higher among patients who received intervention materials in Spanish (77.2%) compared to those who received materials in English (63.2%, p < .01). The personalized coaching in the C-CARES Plus arm did not appear to provide added benefit beyond the C-CARES intervention. Multilevel approaches that include EMR prompts, reminders, FIT access, and provision of low-literacy, language-concordant education can support efforts to improved community clinics' CRCS rates. Future efforts should focus on repeat FIT screening. Trial registration: The trial was registered at ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT03906110). [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Many adults in the U.S. do not receive recommended vaccines, and the research literature remains inconclusive on the best communication strategies for increasing this behavior. This study examined the association of message framing (gained-framed vs. loss-framed vs. control), and healthcare provider (HCP) recommendation (offered vs. recommended) on uptake of adult hepatitis B virus (HBV) vaccination in a high risk population using a 3 × 2 block design randomized controlled trial. Fear of shots, fear of vaccines, and perceived message framing were examined in secondary analyses. Of the 1747 participants, 47.7% (n = 833) received 0 doses of HBV vaccine, 27.8% (n = 485) received 1 dose, 10.4% received 2 doses, and 14.1% received all 3 recommended doses. There was not a significant interaction between message framing and HCP recommendation (p = .59). Mean number of doses received by the gain-framed group (m = 0.96) was not significantly different from the loss-framed group (m = 0.97, RR = 0.99, 95% CI = 0.88-1.12). However, those receiving any framing message received significantly more doses (m = 0.96) than those in the control condition (m = 0.81, RR = 1.17, 95%CI = 1.06-1.31). Participants who received a HCP recommendation received significantly more vaccine doses (m = 0.95) than those in the vaccine-offered condition (mean = 0.82, RR = 1.16, 95%CI = 1.05-1.28). These results suggest there is no difference in vaccine uptake between gain-frame and loss-frame messages, but both are better than a control message. These results also support advising HCP to provide a strong recommendation for vaccinations beyond merely offering it to patients. This study has implications for vaccine uptake beyond HBV, and can inform future research on effective vaccine communication research. Clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT00739752. Registration date: August 20, 2008. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]