Preventive medicine · 1999
The Next Step Trial: impact of a worksite colorectal cancer screening promotion program.
Клиническое исследованиеСтатьяМногоцентровое исследованиеРандомизированное исследованиеПоддержка службы здравоохранения СШАНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
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.
Tilley B C, Vernon S W, Myers R, Glanz K, Lu M, Hirst K, Kristal A R
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: The Next Step Trial was a randomized trial of worksite colorectal cancer screening promotion and nutrition interventions for automobile industry employees at increased risk of colorectal cancer. Interventions were tested at 28 worksites with 5,042 employees. This report describes results of the screening promotion intervention.
METHODS: Worksites randomized to the control group received a standard program including rectal examination, fecal occult blood testing, and flexible sigmoidoscopy. Intervention worksites received an enhanced program (i.e., standard program plus an educational booklet/telephone call). Compliance (i.e., completion of all recommended screening examinations) and coverage (i.e., completion of at least one screening examination), the primary and secondary outcomes, were measured over 2 years.
RESULTS: In the 2 years prior to baseline, 61% of employees had been screened. After random assignment, baseline differences in several employee characteristics and worksite screening procedures were detected, including more past history of screening in control worksites. After adjusting for differences, we found modest, but higher, compliance and coverage in intervention compared with control worksites (odds ratio [95% confidence limits] = 1.46 [1.1-2.0] and 1.33 [1.1, 1.6], respectively).
CONCLUSIONS: Adding a personally tailored behavioral intervention to a standard colorectal cancer screening program can promote continued employee participation in screening as measured by compliance. Further research is needed to assess intervention effects in other populations.
METHODS: Worksites randomized to the control group received a standard program including rectal examination, fecal occult blood testing, and flexible sigmoidoscopy. Intervention worksites received an enhanced program (i.e., standard program plus an educational booklet/telephone call). Compliance (i.e., completion of all recommended screening examinations) and coverage (i.e., completion of at least one screening examination), the primary and secondary outcomes, were measured over 2 years.
RESULTS: In the 2 years prior to baseline, 61% of employees had been screened. After random assignment, baseline differences in several employee characteristics and worksite screening procedures were detected, including more past history of screening in control worksites. After adjusting for differences, we found modest, but higher, compliance and coverage in intervention compared with control worksites (odds ratio [95% confidence limits] = 1.46 [1.1-2.0] and 1.33 [1.1, 1.6], respectively).
CONCLUSIONS: Adding a personally tailored behavioral intervention to a standard colorectal cancer screening program can promote continued employee participation in screening as measured by compliance. Further research is needed to assess intervention effects in other populations.