Preformulated Implementation Intentions to Promote Colorectal Cancer Screening: A Cluster-Randomized Trial

被引:26
|
作者
Lo, Siu Hing [1 ]
Good, Anna [2 ]
Sheeran, Paschal [3 ]
Baio, Gianluca [4 ]
Rainbow, Sandra [5 ]
Vart, Gemma [1 ]
von Wagner, Christian [1 ]
Wardle, Jane [1 ]
机构
[1] UCL, Dept Epidemiol & Publ Hlth, London WC1E 6BT, England
[2] Univ Sussex, Sch Psychol, Brighton, E Sussex, England
[3] Univ Sheffield, Dept Psychol, Sheffield S10 2TN, S Yorkshire, England
[4] UCL, Dept Stat Sci, London WC1E 6BT, England
[5] St Marks Hosp, Bowel Canc Screening Programme, London Hub, London EC1V 2PS, England
关键词
colorectal cancer; screening; implementation intentions; interventions; socioeconomic deprivation; OCCULT BLOOD-TESTS; IMPROVE PARTICIPATION; INCREASING ATTENDANCE; INTERVENTION; METAANALYSIS; POPULATION; PATTERNS; BARRIERS; HEALTH; PLANS;
D O I
10.1037/a0033507
中图分类号
B849 [应用心理学];
学科分类号
040203 ;
摘要
Objective: To evaluate an intervention based on implementation intention principles designed to increase uptake of colorectal cancer screening, and to examine differential efficacy by socioeconomic deprivation. Method: In England, adults aged between 60 and 69 years are invited for biennial fecal occult blood testing. A test kit and an information leaflet are mailed to each individual by the "Hubs" that deliver the national screening program. In the intervention group, three preformulated implementation intentions, based on known barriers to carrying out the test, were added to the information leaflet. Over a 12-week period, each week was randomly allocated to either the intervention (n = 12,414 invitations) or the control condition (n = 10,768), with uptake recorded at the Hub. Socioeconomic deprivation of each individual's area of residence was categorized into tertiles. Results: There was no overall difference in uptake between control (40.4%) and intervention (39.7%) conditions, odds ratio (OR) = 0.97, 95% confidence interval (CI) [0.91, 1.04]. There was an interaction with deprivation, OR = 1.11, 95% CI [1.04, 1.18], but the positive effect observed in the lowest socioeconomic status (SES) tertile was small (35.2% vs. 33.0%), OR = 1.103, 95% CI [1.01, 1.21], and offset by a negative effect in the least deprived tertile (45.6% vs. 48.2%), OR = 0.90, 95% CI [0.82, 0.99]. The intervention had no significant effect in the middle tertile (38.9% vs. 40.8%), OR = 0.92, 95% CI [0.81, 1.04]. Conclusion: Preformulated implementation intentions did not increase overall colorectal cancer screening uptake and failed to make a sufficiently large impact on uptake among lower SES groups to merit their future use in this context.
引用
收藏
页码:998 / 1002
页数:5
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [1] Effect of reminders mailed to general practitioners on colorectal cancer screening adherence: a cluster-randomized trial
    Le Breton, Julien
    Ferrat, Emilie
    Attali, Claude
    Bercier, Sandrine
    Le Corvoisier, Philippe
    Brixi, Zahida
    Veerabudun, Kalaivani
    Renard, Vincent
    Bastuji-Garin, Sylvie
    EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF CANCER PREVENTION, 2016, 25 (05) : 380 - 387
  • [2] A Cluster-Randomized Trial of a Primary Care Informatics-Based System for Breast Cancer Screening
    Atlas, Steven J.
    Grant, Richard W.
    Lester, William T.
    Ashburner, Jeffrey M.
    Chang, Yuchiao
    Barry, Michael J.
    Chueh, Henry C.
    JOURNAL OF GENERAL INTERNAL MEDICINE, 2011, 26 (02) : 154 - 161
  • [3] Implementation Intentions and Colorectal Screening A Randomized Trial in Safety-Net Clinics
    Greiner, K. Allen
    Daley, Christine M.
    Epp, Aaron
    James, Aimee
    Yeh, Hung-Wen
    Geana, Mugur
    Born, Wendi
    Engelman, Kimberly K.
    Shellhorn, Jeremy
    Hester, Christina M.
    LeMaster, Joseph
    Buckles, Daniel C.
    Ellerbeck, Edward F.
    AMERICAN JOURNAL OF PREVENTIVE MEDICINE, 2014, 47 (06) : 703 - 714
  • [4] Can Implementation Intentions and Text Messages Promote Brisk Walking? A Randomized Trial
    Prestwich, Andrew
    Perugini, Marco
    Hurling, Robert
    HEALTH PSYCHOLOGY, 2010, 29 (01) : 40 - 49
  • [5] The effectiveness of school dental screening: a cluster-randomized control trial
    Milsom, K.
    Blinkhorn, A.
    Worthington, H.
    Threlfall, A.
    Buchanan, K.
    Kearney-Mitchell, P.
    Tickle, M.
    JOURNAL OF DENTAL RESEARCH, 2006, 85 (10) : 924 - 928
  • [6] Long-Term Effects of Implementation Intentions on Prevention of Smoking Uptake Among Adolescents: A Cluster Randomized Controlled Trial
    Conner, Mark
    Higgins, Andrea R.
    HEALTH PSYCHOLOGY, 2010, 29 (05) : 529 - 538
  • [7] Which Test Is Best? A Cluster-Randomized Controlled Trial of a Risk Calculator and Recommendations on Colorectal Cancer Screening Behaviour in General Practice
    Trevena, Lyndal J.
    Meiser, Bettina
    Mills, Llewellyn
    Dobbins, Timothy
    Mazza, Danielle
    Emery, Jon D.
    Kirk, Judy
    Goodwin, Annabel
    Barlow-Stewart, Kristine
    Naicker, Sundresan
    PUBLIC HEALTH GENOMICS, 2022, 25 (5-6) : 193 - 208
  • [8] Lay Health Educators Increase Colorectal Cancer Screening Among Hmong Americans: A Cluster Randomized Controlled Trial
    Tong, Elisa K.
    Nguyen, Tung T.
    Lo, Penny
    Stewart, Susan L.
    Gildengorin, Ginny L.
    Tsoh, Janice Y.
    Jo, Angela M.
    Kagawa-Singer, Marjorie L.
    Sy, Angela U.
    Cuaresma, Charlene
    Lam, Hy T.
    Wong, Ching
    Tran, Mi T.
    Chen, Moon S., Jr.
    CANCER, 2017, 123 (01) : 98 - 106
  • [9] Financial Incentives to Promote Colorectal Cancer Screening: A Longitudinal Randomized Control Trial
    Lieberman, Alicea
    Gneezy, Ayelet
    Berry, Emily
    Miller, Stacie
    Koch, Mark
    Ahn, Chul
    Balasubramanian, Bijal A.
    Argenbright, Keith E.
    Gupta, Samir
    CANCER EPIDEMIOLOGY BIOMARKERS & PREVENTION, 2019, 28 (11) : 1902 - 1908
  • [10] Patient and Physician Reminders to Promote Colorectal Cancer Screening A Randomized Controlled Trial
    Sequist, Thomas D.
    Zaslavsky, Alan M.
    Marshall, Richard
    Fletcher, Robert H.
    Ayanian, John Z.
    ARCHIVES OF INTERNAL MEDICINE, 2009, 169 (04) : 364 - 371