Colorectal disease : the official journal of the Association of Coloproctology of Great Britain and Ireland · 2007
Can targeted intervention in CRC patients' relatives influence screening behaviour? A pilot study.
СтатьяРандомизированное исследованиеНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Stephens J H, Moore J W E
Аннотация
OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to assess the utility of a standardised risk information tool with respect to the uptake of screening activities administered to an accessible population of first-degree relatives of patients with sporadic colorectal cancer.
METHOD: Patients admitted for colorectal cancer resection were invited to enroll their family unit in the study. Families were randomised either to receive standard care or the intervention tool. The intervention group received a structured one page pamphlet outlining the risk associated with a family history of colorectal cancer, and the availability of and potential benefits from screening. Three months after the initial contact with the index patient, family members were invited to participate in a telephone interview. Primary end-points were both intention to screen and uptake of screening activities.
RESULTS: Forty-seven families had 156 eligible first degree relatives. Ninety-one consented to participate and were enrolled: 59 received standard care, 32 received the intervention. Age and sex were similar between groups. There was no significant difference in previous screening activities. The intervention tool had no influence on perceived self-risk of developing colorectal cancer or uptake of screening activities within the study period.
CONCLUSION: This study suggests that the provision of targeted risk information to first-degree relatives is not likely to positively influence screening behaviour. Health care providers need to find alternative methods of disseminating information to this high-risk group.
METHOD: Patients admitted for colorectal cancer resection were invited to enroll their family unit in the study. Families were randomised either to receive standard care or the intervention tool. The intervention group received a structured one page pamphlet outlining the risk associated with a family history of colorectal cancer, and the availability of and potential benefits from screening. Three months after the initial contact with the index patient, family members were invited to participate in a telephone interview. Primary end-points were both intention to screen and uptake of screening activities.
RESULTS: Forty-seven families had 156 eligible first degree relatives. Ninety-one consented to participate and were enrolled: 59 received standard care, 32 received the intervention. Age and sex were similar between groups. There was no significant difference in previous screening activities. The intervention tool had no influence on perceived self-risk of developing colorectal cancer or uptake of screening activities within the study period.
CONCLUSION: This study suggests that the provision of targeted risk information to first-degree relatives is not likely to positively influence screening behaviour. Health care providers need to find alternative methods of disseminating information to this high-risk group.