Skip to content

Traditional Print Communication Methods, Simple Electronic Communication Methods, or Usual Care in Increasing How Often Older Women Undergo Colorectal Cancer Screening

Two Delivery Channels to Improve CRC Screening

Status
Completed
Phases
NA
Study type
Interventional
Source
ClinicalTrials.gov
Registry ID
NCT00459030
Enrollment
904
Registered
2007-04-11
Start date
2005-10-31
Completion date
2012-12-31
Last updated
2013-08-19

For informational purposes only — not medical advice. Sourced from public registries and may not reflect the latest updates. Terms

Conditions

Colorectal Cancer

Keywords

colon cancer, rectal cancer

Brief summary

RATIONALE: Finding out which communication method affects a participant's decision to undergo colorectal cancer screening may help increase the number of participants who undergo screening. It is not yet known which communication method is more effective in increasing how often participants undergo colorectal cancer screening. PURPOSE: This randomized clinical trial is studying traditional print communication methods to see how well they work compared with simple electronic communication methods or usual care in increasing how often older women undergo colorectal cancer screening.

Detailed description

OBJECTIVES: * Compare traditional print versus simple electronic communication versus usual care, in terms of increasing colorectal cancer (CRC) screening rates, in average-risk women attending a routine OB/Gyn visit. * Explore the moderating role of attentional style and background variables on the impact of the interventions in these participants. * Determine the mediating effect of potential cognitive-affective factors related to CRC screening in these participants. * Investigate the comparative cost-effectiveness of these interventions to improve CRC screening adherence. OUTLINE: This is a randomized study. Participants are randomized to 1 of 3 screening arms. * Arm I: Participants are contacted by simple electronic communication methods by an email message linked to a personalized website. * Arm II: Participants are contacted by traditional print communication methods. * Arm III: Participants are observed (usual care). Participants in arms I and II are randomized a second time to receive messages about colorectal cancer screening that are matched or mismatched to their attentional style. PROJECTED ACCRUAL: A total of 5,000 participants will be accrued for this study.

Interventions

OTHEReducational intervention via internet

additional cancer screening information via password protected internet site

OTHEReducational intervention mailed
OTHERNo additional educational intervention

Sponsors

National Cancer Institute (NCI)
CollaboratorNIH
Fox Chase Cancer Center
Lead SponsorOTHER

Study design

Allocation
RANDOMIZED
Intervention model
PARALLEL
Primary purpose
HEALTH_SERVICES_RESEARCH
Masking
NONE

Eligibility

Sex/Gender
FEMALE
Age
50 Years to No maximum
Healthy volunteers
Yes

Inclusion criteria

DISEASE CHARACTERISTICS: * At average risk for colorectal cancer (CRC) as defined by the following criteria: * Asymptomatic without a personal history of colorectal polyps or cancer * No inflammatory bowel disease * No family history of familial adenomatous polyposis or hereditary nonpolyposis CRC * No CRC in more than one first-degree relative * Nonadherent with standard CRC screening recommendations at the time of index OB/Gyn appointment PATIENT CHARACTERISTICS: * Email accessible at home and/or work * Able to communicate with ease in English PRIOR CONCURRENT THERAPY: * Not specified

Design outcomes

Primary

MeasureTime frame
Comparison of traditional print versus simple electronic communication versus usual care in terms of increasing colorectal cancer (CRC) screening ratesEnd of study

Secondary

MeasureTime frame
Moderating role of attentional style and background variables on the impact of the interventionsEnd of Study
Mediating effect of potential cognitive-affective factors related to CRC screeningEnd of study

Countries

United States

Outcome results

None listed

Source: ClinicalTrials.gov · Data processed: Mar 24, 2026