Skip to main content

Mailed Psychoeducational Intervention for Colorectal Cancer Screening

An Evidence-Based Practice

Description

This mailed psycoeducational intervention improves positive expectations and addresses perceived barriers to colorectal cancer screening. Participants in the program receive a booklet prior to an invitation for a colorectal cancer screening. The booklet uses a cartoon-strip format, depicting brief conversations between friends and family members addressing questions about barriers to screening. Short sentences and simple language are used to make the message easy to understand, and the humorous drawings make the topic more approachable. Each conversation addresses a particular screening barrier, followed by a summary paragraph to reiterate important points. The booklet also contains quotations from participants who have already been screened, using their personal experience to encourage new participants to be screened for colorectal cancer.

Goal / Mission

The goal of this program is to improve colorectal cancer screening rates among older adults.

Impact

Participants in the intervention group had significantly higher colorectal cancer screening attendance, as well as having more positive attitudes about screening and placing a higher priority on screening.

Results / Accomplishments

In a randomized controlled trial, participants in the intervention group were compared to a control group who received no booklet prior to their invitation for a colorectal screening. Colorectal cancer screening attendance was significantly higher in the intervention group than the control group (53.5% vs. 49.9%, p < 0.05). The intervention was as effective in the most deprived economic group as the middle and least deprived economic groups. Following the intervention, members of the intervention group had significantly lower scores on negative attitudes (perceiving the test as painful and embarrassing), were less fatalistic or afraid, and felt better able to ask someone to accompany them to the screening (all p's < 0.05). They had significantly higher scores on positive attitudes, and placed a higher priority on screening (p's < 0.01). The intervention group anticipated feeling worse if they did not have the test and reported significantly higher screening intention (p's < 0.01).

About this Promising Practice

Organization(s)
Cancer Research UK, University College London
Primary Contact
Professor Jane Wardle FBA FMedSci
Director, Health Behaviour Research Centre
Department of Epidemiology and Public Health
University College London
1-19 Torrington Place
London WC1E 6BT, UK
+44 (0)20 7679 1720
admin.bsh@ucl.ac.uk
http://www.ucl.ac.uk/hbrc/screening/summary.html
Topics
Health / Cancer
Health / Prevention & Safety
Organization(s)
Cancer Research UK, University College London
Source
Health Psychology
Date of publication
Jan 2003
Date of implementation
2001
Location
England
For more details
Target Audience
Adults
Michigan Health Improvement Alliance