Leveraging Multi-Sectoral Partnership for Colorectal Cancer Education and Screening in the African American Community: A Protocol and Preliminary Results.
Jungyoon Kim, Hongying Daisy Dai, Tzeyu Michaud, Sachi Verma, Keyonna M King, John W Ewing, Grace Mabiala-Maye, Paul Estabrooks
{"title":"Leveraging Multi-Sectoral Partnership for Colorectal Cancer Education and Screening in the African American Community: A Protocol and Preliminary Results.","authors":"Jungyoon Kim, Hongying Daisy Dai, Tzeyu Michaud, Sachi Verma, Keyonna M King, John W Ewing, Grace Mabiala-Maye, Paul Estabrooks","doi":"10.1007/s13187-024-02506-w","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Colorectal cancer (CRC) awareness and screening rates are still low in African Americans (AAs), especially for those who do not have regular access to health care. We established a multi-sector community partnership between academia, health system, cancer advocacy, and local county treasurer's office (CTO), to test a pilot CRC screening intervention using a tailored educational brochure and fecal immunochemical test (FIT). Participants were recruited at a local CTO in an urban midwestern region. Once eligible, participants were assigned to 2-by-2 intervention arms by educational strategy (brochure vs. no brochure) and FIT provision strategy (direct provision by onsite staff vs. indirect provision via phone/online request). We compared the effect of different strategies on FIT return rates. Of 1500 individuals approached, 212 were eligible for the study. The final sample consisted of 209 participants who were predominantly men (57%) and AAs (85%). No differences were found in the return rates by educational brochure (24% [brochure] vs. 23% [no brochure]; p = 0.82). In regard to FIT provision strategy, direct FIT provision yielded higher return rates than indirect provision (31% vs. 15%; p = 0.01). When the four groups were compared, direct provision with education brochure yielded the highest return rates (33.9%), followed by direct provision only (27.5%), indirect provision only (18%), and indirect provision with a brochure (12.2%). For community-based CRC screening intervention using stool-based test, the direct provision of FIT kits with educational brochure outperforms the other three strategies.</p>","PeriodicalId":50246,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Cancer Education","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.4000,"publicationDate":"2024-09-23","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Cancer Education","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s13187-024-02506-w","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"EDUCATION, SCIENTIFIC DISCIPLINES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Colorectal cancer (CRC) awareness and screening rates are still low in African Americans (AAs), especially for those who do not have regular access to health care. We established a multi-sector community partnership between academia, health system, cancer advocacy, and local county treasurer's office (CTO), to test a pilot CRC screening intervention using a tailored educational brochure and fecal immunochemical test (FIT). Participants were recruited at a local CTO in an urban midwestern region. Once eligible, participants were assigned to 2-by-2 intervention arms by educational strategy (brochure vs. no brochure) and FIT provision strategy (direct provision by onsite staff vs. indirect provision via phone/online request). We compared the effect of different strategies on FIT return rates. Of 1500 individuals approached, 212 were eligible for the study. The final sample consisted of 209 participants who were predominantly men (57%) and AAs (85%). No differences were found in the return rates by educational brochure (24% [brochure] vs. 23% [no brochure]; p = 0.82). In regard to FIT provision strategy, direct FIT provision yielded higher return rates than indirect provision (31% vs. 15%; p = 0.01). When the four groups were compared, direct provision with education brochure yielded the highest return rates (33.9%), followed by direct provision only (27.5%), indirect provision only (18%), and indirect provision with a brochure (12.2%). For community-based CRC screening intervention using stool-based test, the direct provision of FIT kits with educational brochure outperforms the other three strategies.
期刊介绍:
The Journal of Cancer Education, the official journal of the American Association for Cancer Education (AACE) and the European Association for Cancer Education (EACE), is an international, quarterly journal dedicated to the publication of original contributions dealing with the varied aspects of cancer education for physicians, dentists, nurses, students, social workers and other allied health professionals, patients, the general public, and anyone interested in effective education about cancer related issues.
Articles featured include reports of original results of educational research, as well as discussions of current problems and techniques in cancer education. Manuscripts are welcome on such subjects as educational methods, instruments, and program evaluation. Suitable topics include teaching of basic science aspects of cancer; the assessment of attitudes toward cancer patient management; the teaching of diagnostic skills relevant to cancer; the evaluation of undergraduate, postgraduate, or continuing education programs; and articles about all aspects of cancer education from prevention to palliative care.
We encourage contributions to a special column called Reflections; these articles should relate to the human aspects of dealing with cancer, cancer patients, and their families and finding meaning and support in these efforts.
Letters to the Editor (600 words or less) dealing with published articles or matters of current interest are also invited.
Also featured are commentary; book and media reviews; and announcements of educational programs, fellowships, and grants.
Articles should be limited to no more than ten double-spaced typed pages, and there should be no more than three tables or figures and 25 references. We also encourage brief reports of five typewritten pages or less, with no more than one figure or table and 15 references.