Browsing by Author "Strom, Sylvia"

Now showing 1 - 3 of 3
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    Development of a Computer-Tailored Intervention/Decision Aid To Increase Colorectal Cancer Screening in Health Systems
    (Cureus, 2022-03-21) Fatima, Hala; Wajid, Maryiam; Krier, Connie; Champion, Victoria; Carter-Harris, Lisa; Shedd-Steele, Rivienne; Imperiale, Thomas F.; Schwartz, Peter; Strom, Sylvia; Magnarella, Mark; Rawl, Susan M.; Medicine, School of Medicine
    Background: Non-compliance with scheduled colonoscopy is common among patients, especially in underserved populations. High no-show and late cancelation rates result in wasted resources, increased costs, and missed opportunities for colorectal cancer (CRC) screening. Among the barriers to colonoscopy is a lack of knowledge about the benefits, fears, and limited time for patient counseling. Methodology: We produced a digital video disc and a website program to enhance awareness about CRC screening and address patient barriers in a population with low screening adherence. Results: Patients can be educated via an interactive computer-tailored intervention with both DVD and web versions. It details the benefits and need for CRC screening, different methods of screening, and addresses patient-related barriers. Conclusions: Patient education is crucial to increase CRC screening among eligible individuals. Because online engagement is affected by attention, interest, and affect, content should be concise but comprehensive.
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    Partnering to Increase Colorectal Cancer Screening: Perspectives of Community Advisory Board Members
    (Sage, 2021-10) Rawl, Susan M.; Bailey, Sandra; Cork, Beatrice; Fields, Matthew; Griffin, Thomas; Haunert, Laura; Kline, Judy; Krier, Connie; Lagunes, Juan; Lambert, Ruth L.; Malloy, Caeli; Quick, Jack; Shedd-Steele, Rivienne; Strom, Sylvia; Carter-Harris, Lisa; School of Nursing
    The Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute (PCORI) defines engagement in research as the meaningful involvement of patients, caregivers, clinicians, insurers, and others throughout the entire research process – from planning, to conducting the study, to disseminating study results. The purposes of this paper are to: 1) describe methods used to engage community members across the various phases of a PCORI-funded comparative effectiveness trial to increase colorectal cancer screening; and 2) report results of qualitative and quantitative evaluations of community advisory board members’ experiences on this project. Decisions to join and stay engaged with the study included feeling valued and appreciated, being compensated, the opportunity to contribute to research based on their skills and expertise, and being committed to colon cancer prevention efforts. Challenges identified by advisory board members included the significant time commitment, transportation, and meeting location. Lessons learned and guidance for researchers committed to patient and community engagement are described.
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    Process Evaluation of a Mailed Interactive Educational DVD in a Comparative Effectiveness Trial to Promote Colorectal Cancer Screening
    (Sage, 2022) Katz, Mira L.; Emerson, Brent; Champion, Victoria L.; Schwartz, Peter H.; Impleriale, Thomas F.; Fatima, Hala; Paskett, Electra D.; Perkins, Susan M.; Tong, Yan; Gebregziabher, Netsanet; Krier, Connie; Tharp, Kevin; Malloy, Caeli; Strom, Sylvia; Rawl, Susan M.; School of Nursing
    A process evaluation was conducted as part of a comparative effectiveness trial of a mailed interactive educational DVD intervention to promote colorectal cancer screening among average-risk patients who did not attend a scheduled colonoscopy. Participants (n = 371) for the trial were randomized to (1) mailed DVD, (2) mailed DVD plus patient navigation, or (3) usual care. Participants (n = 243) randomized to the two DVD intervention arms were called 2 weeks after mailing materials to complete a process evaluation interview about the DVD (September 2017-February 2020). Forty-nine (20%) participants were not reached, and 194 (80%) participants watched the DVD and completed the interview. The process evaluation assessed whether (1) the DVD content was helpful, (2) any new information was learned by participants, (3) the appropriate amount of information was included in the DVD, (4) participants were engaged when watching the DVD, (5) the DVD content was relevant, (6) participants were satisfied with the DVD (7) participants would recommend the DVD to others, and (8) their opinion about colorectal cancer screening was changed by watching the DVD. Among participants who watched the DVD, 99% reported the screening information was very or somewhat helpful, 47% learned new information, 75% said the DVD included the right amount of information, they were engaged (M = 3.35 out of 4, SD = 0.49), 87% reported all or most information applied to them, they were satisfied (M = 3.42 out of 4, SD = 0.39) with DVD content, 99% would recommend the DVD to others, and 45% reported changing their opinion about screening. To understand the effects of interventions being tested in trials and to plan the dissemination of evidence-based interventions, process evaluation is critical to assess the dose received and acceptability of behavioral interventions.