Interactive, culturally sensitive education on colorectal cancer screening.

Menon U, Szalacha LA, Belue R, Rugen K, Martin KR, Kinney AY. Interactive, culturally sensitive education on colorectal cancer screening. Medical care. 2008 Sep 1; 46(9 Suppl 1):S44-50.

Dimensions for VA is a web-based tool available to VA staff that enables detailed searches of published research and research projects.

If you have VA-Intranet access, click here for more information vaww.hsrd.research.va.gov/dimensions/

VA staff not currently on the VA network can access Dimensions by registering for an account using their VA email address.    Search Dimensions for VA for this citation
* Don't have VA-internal network access or a VA email address? Try searching the free-to-the-public version of Dimensions

Search for Abstract from PubMed

---

Abstract:

BACKGROUND: Increasing colorectal cancer screening (CRCS) can have a substantial positive impact on morbidity and mortality. OBJECTIVES: The purpose of this report is to describe the development and feasibility testing of a computer-based, theory-guided educational program designed to increase CRCS. RESEARCH DESIGN: This mixed-methods study used focus groups and subsequent randomized controlled trial design. SUBJECTS:Participants (N = 199) were randomized to an intervention or control group; 75% were African American; mean age was 57.36 (SD = 6.8); 71% were male. MEASURES: Previously validated measures on knowledge, beliefs, and screening test adherence were used to establish pre- and post-intervention perceptions. Feasibility was measured by response and completion rates, and participants' perceptions of the program. RESULTS: Before feasibility testing, the program was presented to 2 focus groups. Changes were made to the program based on discussion, leading to a visually appealing, easy to understand and navigate, self-paced program. In the RCT pilot test that followed, of the participants in the intervention group, 80% said the education helped them decide to get CRCS; 49% agreed it helped them overcome barriers; 91% agreed it was useful, 68% thought it raised new concerns about cancer, but only 30% said it made them worry about CRC; 95% agreed their doctor's office should continue giving such education, and 99% said they would inform family about the program. CONCLUSIONS: The response rate of 83% demonstrated feasibility of conducting colorectal cancer education in the primary care setting; overall the program was well received; participants averaged 23 minutes to complete it. Participants sought no help from attending data collectors and navigated the revised touch screen program with ease. Computer-based education is feasible in primary care clinics.