Tools for Improving Colorectal Cancer Screening Rates: Multimedia Versus Print
|The safety and scientific validity of this study is the responsibility of the study sponsor and investigators. Listing a study does not mean it has been evaluated by the U.S. Federal Government. Read our disclaimer for details.|
|ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT01072851|
Recruitment Status : Completed
First Posted : February 22, 2010
Last Update Posted : September 7, 2012
The objective of this study is to compare the effectiveness of multimedia and print tools designed to provide patients at safety-net clinics with comprehensible information about colorectal cancer screening and motivate them to complete screening.The print and multimedia interventions were constructed with parallel content to allow valid comparison of format-related effects on knowledge and screening rates.These easy to use tools will provide under served patients at community health centers with clear and consistent messages about colorectal Cancer(CRC) and CRC screening, delivered immediately before the patients see a doctor.
- To determine if multimedia and print interventions that provide patients with information and motivational messages about CRC screening increase screening rates above usual care.
Determine whether showing patients a multimedia program achieves higher CRC screening rates than does a print booklet with equivalent messages.
- Examine if the effects of these multimedia and print interventions on CRC screening rates differ with literacy level.
- Examine if the effects of these multimedia and print interventions on CRC screening differ with race/ethnicity
- Examine if these multimedia and print interventions have differential effects on knowledge relevant to CRC screening.
|Condition or disease||Intervention/treatment||Phase|
|Colorectal Cancer||Behavioral: Multimedia Education Behavioral: Print Media Behavioral: Usual and customary waiting room process||Phase 3|
Despite the clear benefits of screening for early detection and prevention of colorectal cancer, as many as half of eligible adults remain unscreened. Poor and under served populations, particularly African American and Latino/Hispanic adults, are at greatest risk for noncompliance with recommended tests. Health education strategies developed to date have led to relatively minimal gains, resulting in little translation to routine clinical practice. This is especially true in more difficult, resource-strained practice settings, such as community health centers.
The interventions in the proposed study draw on communication science to optimize message design, use communication technology to optimize message delivery and include parallel content in both print and multimedia versions to allow comparison of format-related effects on both knowledge and screening rates.The multimedia and print tools are based on patient education programs that we developed with extensive attention to theory as well as community member input.
|Study Type :||Interventional (Clinical Trial)|
|Actual Enrollment :||920 participants|
|Intervention Model:||Parallel Assignment|
|Masking:||Double (Participant, Care Provider)|
|Official Title:||Tools for Improving Colorectal Cancer Screening Rates: Multimedia vs Print|
|Study Start Date :||July 2008|
|Actual Primary Completion Date :||July 2012|
|Actual Study Completion Date :||September 2012|
Experimental: Multimedia educational tool
Multimedia education tool - A culturally competent video explaining the importance of and the process of colorectal cancer screening
Behavioral: Multimedia Education
A four minute exposure to an educational video with controlled content on the importance of colorectal cancer screening and explaining the processes and procedures.
Experimental: Print educational tool
Print media - A culturally competent printed brochure explaining the importance of and the process of colorectal cancer screening
Behavioral: Print Media
Exposure to a printed brochure with controlled content on the importance of colorectal cancer screening and explaining the processes and procedures.
Active Comparator: No intervention
Usual and customary waiting room process - Usual and customary office waiting period with access to standard nationally generated colorectal cancer screening informational material in the waiting room and/or exam room.
Behavioral: Usual and customary waiting room process
No specialized educational intervention to promote colorectal cancer screening or to explain the process
- Comparison of the acceptance of colorectal cancer screening by patients who view print or multimedia educational tools [ Time Frame: 3 months post visit ]
- Role of race/ethnicity and literacy levels on the comparative effects if the intervention [ Time Frame: At scheduled appointment ]
- Comparative knowledge of colorectal cancer screening by patients who view the print or multi-media educational tools. [ Time Frame: At the scheduled patient visit ]
To learn more about this study, you or your doctor may contact the study research staff using the contact information provided by the sponsor.
Please refer to this study by its ClinicalTrials.gov identifier (NCT number): NCT01072851
|United States, Illinois|
|Midlakes Medical Building|
|Highland Park, Illinois, United States, 60085|
|North Chicago Health Center|
|North Chicago, Illinois, United States, 60064|
|Belvidere Medical Building|
|Waukegan, Illinois, United States, 60085|
|Principal Investigator:||Gregory Makoul, PHD||St. Francis Hospital and Medical Center|