Understanding Cancer Worry Among Patients in a Community Clinic-Based Colorectal Cancer Screening Intervention Study.

BACKGROUND: To reduce colorectal cancer (CRC) screening disparities, it is important to understand correlates of different types of cancer worry among ethnically diverse individuals. OBJECTIVES: The current study examined the prevalence of three types of cancer worry (i.e., general cancer worry, CRC-specific worry, and worry about CRC test results) as well as sociodemographic and health-related predictors for each type of cancer worry. METHODS: Participants were aged 50-75, at average CRC risk, nonadherent to CRC screening guidelines, and enrolled in a randomized controlled trial to increase CRC screening. Participants completed a baseline questionnaire assessing sociodemographics, health beliefs, healthcare experiences, and three cancer worry measures. Associations between study variables were examined with separate univariate and multivariable logistic regression models. RESULTS: Responses from a total of 416 participants were used. Of these, 47% reported experiencing moderate-to-high levels of general cancer worry. Predictors of general cancer worry were salience and coherence (aOR = 1.1, 95% CI [1.0, 1.3]), perceived susceptibility (aOR = 1.2, 95% CI [1.1, 1.3), and social influence (aOR = 1.1, 95% CI [1.0, 0.1]). Fewer (23%) reported moderate-to-high levels of CRC-specific worry or CRC test worry (35%). Predictors of CRC worry were perceived susceptibility (aOR = 1.4, 95% CI [1.3, 1.6]) and social influence (aOR = 1.1, 95% CI [1.0, 1.2]); predictors of CRC test result worry were perceived susceptibility (aOR = 1.2, 95% CI [1.1, 1.3) and marital status (aOR = 2.0, 95% CI [1.1, 3.7] for married/partnered vs. single and aOR = 2.3, 95% CI [1.3, 4.1] for divorced/widowed vs. single). DISCUSSION: Perceived susceptibility consistently predicted the three types of cancer worry, whereas other predictors varied between cancer worry types and in magnitude of association. The three types of cancer worry were generally predicted by health beliefs, suggesting potential malleability. Future research should include multiple measures of cancer worry and clear definitions of how cancer worry is measured.

A randomized controlled trial of a multicomponent, targeted, low-literacy educational intervention compared with a nontargeted intervention to boost colorectal cancer screening with fecal immunochemical testing in community clinics.

BACKGROUND: The objective of the current study was to improve colorectal cancer (CRC) screening uptake with the fecal immunochemical test (FIT). The current study investigated the differential impact of a multicomponent, targeted, low-literacy educational intervention compared with a standard, nontargeted educational intervention. METHODS: Patients aged 50 to 75 years who were of average CRC risk and not up-to-date with CRC screening were recruited from either a federally qualified health center or a primary care community health clinic. Patients were randomized to the intervention condition (targeted photonovella booklet/DVD plus FIT kit) or comparison condition (standard Centers for Disease Control and Prevention brochure plus FIT kit). The main outcome was screening with FIT within 180 days of delivery of the intervention. RESULTS: Of the 416 participants, 54% were female; the participants were racially and ethnically diverse (66% white, 10% Hispanic, and 28% African American), predominantly of low income, and insured (the majority had county health insurance). Overall, the FIT completion rate was 81%, with 78.1% of participants in the intervention versus 83.5% of those in the comparison condition completing FIT (P = .17). In multivariate analysis, having health insurance was found to be the primary factor predicting a lack of FIT screening (adjusted odds ratio, 2.10; 95% confidence interval, 1.04-4.26 [P = .04]). CONCLUSIONS: The multicomponent, targeted, low-literacy materials were not found to be significantly different or more effective in increasing FIT uptake compared with the nontargeted materials. Provision of a FIT test plus education may provide a key impetus to improve the completion of CRC screening. The type of educational material (targeted vs nontargeted) may matter less. The findings of the current study provide a unique opportunity for clinics to adopt FIT and to choose the type of patient education materials based on clinic, provider, and patient preferences. Cancer 2017;123:1390-1400. © 2016 American Cancer Society.