Article Figures & Data
Figures
- Figure 1
Change in colorectal cancer screening (ever had test) in intervention vs control regions.
- Figure 2
Impact of exposure on colorectal cancer screening (n = 1,048).
Note: endoscopy refers to colonoscopy and/or sigmoidoscopy.
aP <.05
- Figure 3
Temporal changes in hospital endoscopy for intervention and control regions.
Note: Annual number of sigmoidoscopies and colonoscopies performed as reported by hospitals in the intervention region vs control region. Vertical line denotes beginning of intervention in 2004–2005.
Tables
Baseline (n=1,005) Follow-up (n=1,000) Characteristic No (%) No. (%) P Value Age, y .66 50–64 524 (52.2) 511 (51.1) 65–70 289 (28.7) 273 (27.3) 75–84 164 (16.3) 179 (17.9) ≥85 27 (2.7) 36 (3.5) Declined 1 (0.1) 1 (0.1) Sex .94 Male 333 (33.2) 330 (33.0) Female 672 (66.8) 670 (67.0) Race .43 White 886 (88.1) 896 (89.6) African American 2 (0.2) 1 (0.1) Asian 3 (0.3) 1 (0.1) Native Hawaiian/other Pacific Islander 5 (0.5) 1 (0.1) American Indian/Alaska Native 15 (1.5) 10 (1.0) Other 72 (7.2) 69 (6.9) Don’t know/declined 22 (2.2) 23 (2.3) . Ethnicity .06 White non-Hispanic 839 (83.5) 874 (87.4) Hispanic 101 (10.0) 73 (7.3) Other non-Hispanic 53 (5.3) 40 (3.9) Don’t know/declined 12 (1.2) 14 (1.4) Education level .09 High school or less 412 (41.0) 397 (39.7) 13–16 years 443 (44.1) 485 (48.5) ≥17 years 147 (14.6) 114 (11.4) Don’t know/declined 4 (0.3) 4 (0.4) Income .01 <$20,000 282 (28.1) 240 (24.0) $20,000–$49,000 372 (37.0) 345 (34.5) $50,000–$74,999 126 (12.6) 125 (12.5) ≥$75,000 78 (7.8) 103 (10.3) Don’t know/declined 146 (14.5) 187 (18.7) Employment .22 Employed/self-employed 438 (43.6) 394 (39.4) Unemployed/unable to work 76 (7.5) 75 (7.4) Homemaker 49 (4.9) 66 (6.6) Retired 435 (43.3) 458 (45.8) Other 8 (0.8) 7 (0.7) -
Note: Weighted sample.
-
- Table 2
Changes in Colon Cancer Screening Behavior From Baseline to Follow-up: Intervention vs Control
Weighted Variable Intervention Region, % (n=1,018) Control Region, % (n=988) Difference in Change,aP Value Baseline (n=518) Follow-up (n=500) Baseline (n=487) Follow-up (n=501) Any test Ever had 76 81 77 77 .22 Up to date 60 69 57 65 .82 Plans to have 16 28 15 17 .18 Fecal occult blood test Ever had 61 63 64 60 .11 Up to date 29 29 34 29 .29 Plans to have NA NA NA NA NA Sigmoidoscopy Ever had 35 35 32 31 .72 Up to date 30 30 25 25 .70 Plans to have 5 7 5 7 .73 Colonoscopy Ever had 43 55 42 52 .70 Up to date 38 52 37 49 .78 Plans to have 9 15 8 17 .63 Endoscopyb Ever had 53 62 50 58 .83 Up to date 47 58 43 53 .86 Plans to have 8 18 9 19 .54 Barium enema Ever had 27 25 30 23 .31 Up to date 13 11 12 8 .38 Plans to have NA NA NA NA NA Virtual colonoscopy Ever had 15 15 11 11 .83 Up to date 10 11 9 8 .91 Plans to have NA NA NA NA NA -
NA=not applicable.
-
Note: Models for “ever had” and “up to date” were adjusted for intervention group; time; time-by–intervention group interaction; and respondent’s age, sex, race, and income; these analyses included all respondents. Models for “plans to have” were adjusted for intervention group, time, and time-by–intervention group interaction; these analyses included only respondents who never had the test performed.
-
↵a Intervention vs control, change from baseline to follow-up.
-
↵b Sigmoidoscopy and/or colonoscopy.
-
The Article in Brief
Testing to Prevent Colon Cancer: Results From a Rural Community Intervention
John M. Westfall , and colleagues
Background Colon cancer is the second leading cause of cancer death in the United States, but rates of colon cancer screening are low. This study examined a community-based participatory approach to increase colon cancer screening in rural northeast Colorado.
What This Study Found The program, which included educational and motivational materials disseminated through local newspapers and other targeted outlets (eg, auction flyers and community organizations), successfully engaged community members and resulted in a modest, though not statistically significant, increase in overall colon cancer screening. Researchers with the High Plains Research Network found a 5 percent increase in the proportion of respondents who reported ever having had any test in the intervention communities compared with no increase among control counties in southeast Colorado. They also found the extent of exposure to intervention materials was associated with a significant and cumulative increase in screening. Community members who reported seeing five or more products were significantly more likely to report having ever been tested or being up to date for colon cancer screening than those who had seen only one component.
Implications
- The authors conclude that the findings provide preliminary evidence for the effectiveness of a multicomponent community approach to improve colon cancer screening.
In this issue
Jump to section
Related Articles
Cited By...
- Engaging practices and communities in the development of interventions to promote HPV vaccine uptake: a protocol for implementing Boot Camp Translation in the private practice setting
- Reinventing The Wheel Of Medical Evidence: How The Boot Camp Translation Process Is Making Gains
- Testing to Prevent Colon Cancer: How Rural Community Members Took on a Community-Based Intervention
- In This Issue: Working in Community and Improving Health Care Quality