Family Colorectal Cancer Awareness and Risk Education Project (Family CARE Project) (Family CARE)
|Study Design:||Allocation: Randomized
Intervention Model: Parallel Assignment
Masking: Single Blind (Outcomes Assessor)
Primary Purpose: Prevention
|Official Title:||Impact of Remote Familial Colorectal Cancer Assessment and Counseling|
- Colonoscopy [ Time Frame: 9 month follow-up ]The primary outcome is colonoscopy. Medical record verification of self-reported colonoscopy is performed.
- Fecal occult blood test (FOBT)/Fecal Immunochemical Test (FIT) [ Time Frame: Baseline, 1 month, 9 month, and 15 month follow-up ]Fecal occult blood test(FOBT) following the intervention. Medical confirmation of self-reported FOBT/FIT is performed.
- Perceived Control [ Time Frame: Baseline, 1 month and 9 month follow-up ]The Perceived Personal Control Scale is an integrative outcome that encompasses the broad spectrum of health risk communication and informed decision-making. This validated scale is a 9-item measure representing three dimensions of control participants believe they have regarding family history of colorectal cancer (CRC): cognitive-interpretive, decisional, and behavioral. A 5-point Likert-style response format is used ranging from very little control to very high control. A total scale score is calculated by summing the items.
- Perceived Risk [ Time Frame: Baseline, 1 month and 9 month follow-up ]A 4-item scale with established construct and predictive validity with regard to cancer screening will assess participants' subjective perceived risk for developing colorectal cancer. Responses are measured on a five-point Likert scale ranging from very small to very large.
- Psychological distress [ Time Frame: Baseline, 1 month and 9 month follow-up ]Generalized psychological distress will be operationalized as state anxiety and we will use the State Subscale of the State Trait Anxiety Inventory. We will also measure cancer-specific distress with the Impact of Event Scale. The stressor in this study is having a family history of colorectal cancer.
- Knowledge [ Time Frame: Baseline, 1 month and 9 month follow-up ]The Colorectal Cancer Knowledge Survey is a validated 12-item scale that assesses colorectal cancer screening knowledge, colorectal cancer risk factors (including family history) and CRC symptoms. The questionnaire consists of true/false with a possible range of scores of 0-12. FOBT items will be substituted with colonoscopy.
- Decisional Conflict [ Time Frame: Baseline, 1 month and 9 month follow-up ]Participants are asked to evaluate whether or not they feel confident in their decision to receive or not receive CRC screening. Assessment following the intervention will determine whether the decisional conflict has been resolved and whether or not that resolution results in colonoscopy uptake.
|Study Start Date:||May 2008|
|Study Completion Date:||April 2013|
|Primary Completion Date:||April 2013 (Final data collection date for primary outcome measure)|
Active Comparator: Telephone-delivered risk intervention
Participants in this arm receive a personalized telephone-risk assessment intervention provided by a trained cancer risk counselor.
Personalized telephone-delivered cancer risk assessment.
Active Comparator: Mailed pamphlet intervention group
Participants in this group receive a mailed pamphlet containing information about familial colorectal cancer risk and screening.
Behavioral: Pamphlet intervention
Mailed pamphlet about familial colorectal cancer risk and screening.
The rate of adherence to regular colonoscopy screening (CS) among members of families at increased risk for colorectal cancer (CRC) is far below recommended levels. Persons who live in rural areas of the United States exhibit lower CRC screening rates than their urban counterparts. Although the detection of familial predisposition to cancer begins with an accurate family medical history, data indicate that many patients do not receive adequate familial cancer risk assessment from their primary care providers. This suggests that familial risk is largely unrecognized which may lead to inadequate risk stratification, lack of risk notification, appropriate risk counseling, suboptimal cancer screening and preventable deaths. Because of geographic and system-level barriers, special efforts are needed to improve access to personalized risk communication and adherence to CRC screening to rural and other geographically underserved populations at increased risk for CRC. In the proposed study, we will evaluate a novel telephone-based, theory-guided personalized risk communication intervention that combines a familial CRC risk assessment and behavioral counseling with tailored messages. The key hypothesis guiding this study is that a multifaceted personalized risk communication intervention will improve CS at a significantly higher rate than a mailed targeted print intervention.
Our integrative study model specifies important theoretical mechanisms that can contribute to increased use of CS among persons at increased risk. We will enroll 438 adult men and women between the ages of 30-74 who are considered at increased risk of familial CRC into this 2-group randomized trial. The primary aim of this study is to compare colonoscopy use among participants in the two groups. Secondary aims are to compare the two groups with regard to cognitive and emotional outcomes and explore the underlying mechanisms through which the interventions have an impact on colonoscopy behavior. Sociodemographic, clinical, behavioral and psychosocial measures will be collected from participants at baseline, and 1 month, 9 months, and 15 months following the intervention. Self-reported colonoscopy is verified with medical records.
The study's findings will have both theoretical, as well as practical significance. Our findings will help to influence the selection and dissemination of effective outreach approaches to improve CRC screening in populations at increased risk for the disease. These results have broad applicability to understanding responses to personalized risk communication interventions for other diseases as well. Findings will also broaden our understanding of the underlying theoretical mechanisms of how remote cancer risk communications lead to improvements in cancer screening among geographically underserved populations if such intervention effects are observed.
In addition to studying the intervention effects in rural areas, we will enroll participants in urban areas. These enhancements to our population-based randomized behavioral trial will provide us with an unprecedented opportunity to assess reach and determine if there are differential intervention effects (i.e., efficacy) with regard to place of residence (rurality vs. urbanicity.)
Please refer to this study by its ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT01274143
|United States, California|
|California Cancer Registry|
|Sacramento, California, United States, 95825|
|United States, Colorado|
|University of Colorado Cancer Center|
|Aurora, Colorado, United States, 80045|
|Colorado Central Cancer Registry|
|Denver, Colorado, United States, 80246|
|United States, Idaho|
|Cancer Data Registry of Idaho|
|Boise, Idaho, United States, 83701|
|United States, New Mexico|
|University of New Mexico|
|Albuquerque, New Mexico, United States, 87131|
|United States, Utah|
|Intermountain Health Care|
|Salt Lake City, Utah, United States, 84111|
|Huntsman Cancer Institute|
|Salt Lake City, Utah, United States, 84112|
|Utah Cancer Registry|
|Salt Lake City, Utah, United States, 84112|
|Principal Investigator:||Anita Y Kinney, Ph.D., R.N.||Huntsman Cancer Institute and University of Utah|