4.3 Article

Effects of a Community-to-Clinic Navigation Intervention on Colorectal Cancer Screening Among Underserved People

Journal

ANNALS OF BEHAVIORAL MEDICINE
Volume 54, Issue 5, Pages 308-319

Publisher

OXFORD UNIV PRESS INC
DOI: 10.1093/abm/kaz049

Keywords

Colorectal cancer; Cancer screening; Patient navigation; Implementation science

Funding

  1. National Cancer Institute [RO1 CA 5R01CA162393]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Background Colorectal cancer screening remains suboptimal among poor and underserved people. Purpose We tested the effectiveness of a community-to-clinic navigator intervention to guide multicultural, underinsured individuals into primary care clinics to complete colorectal cancer screening. Methods This two-phase behavioral intervention study was conducted in Phoenix, Arizona (2012-2018). Community sites were randomized to group education or group education plus tailored navigation to increase attendance at primary care clinics (Phase I). Individuals who completed a clinic appointment received the tailored navigation in person or via phone (Phase II). Results In Phase I (N = 345), 37.9% of the intervention group scheduled a clinic appointment versus 19.4% of the comparison group. In Phase 11, 26.5% of the original intervention group were screened versus only 10.4% of the original comparison group. Those in the intervention group were 3.84 times more likely to be screened than were those in the comparison group (odds ratio = 3.84; 95% confidence interval = 1.81-6.92). Conclusions Translation of an efficacious tailored navigation intervention for colorectal cancer screening to a community-to-clinic context is associated with significantly increased rates of colorectal cancer screening. Navigation assistance to address barriers to screening may serve as the most important component of any educational program to increase individual adherence to colorectal cancer screening.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.3
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available