The Family Health Promotion Project (FHPP): design and baseline data from a randomized trial to increase colonoscopy screening in high risk families

Comparative Effectiveness of Two Interventions to Increase Colorectal Cancer Screening for Those at Increased Risk Based on Family History: Results of a Randomized Trial

BACKGROUND

First-degree relatives (FDR) of patients with colorectal cancer are at risk for colorectal cancer, but may not be up to date with colorectal cancer screening. We sought to determine whether a one-time recommendation about needing colorectal cancer screening using patient navigation (PN) was better than just receiving the recommendation only.

METHODS

Participants were FDRs of patients with Lynch syndrome-negative colorectal cancer from participating Ohio hospitals. FDRs from 259 families were randomized to a website intervention (528 individuals), which included a survey and personal colorectal cancer screening recommendation, while those from 254 families were randomized to the website plus telephonic PN intervention (515 individuals). Primary outcome was adherence to the personal screening recommendation (to get screened or not to get screened) received from the website. Secondary outcomes examined who benefited from adding PN.

RESULTS

At the end of the 14-month follow-up, 78.6% of participants were adherent to their recommendation for colorectal cancer screening with adherence similar between arms (P = 0.14). Among those who received a recommendation to have a colonoscopy immediately, the website plus PN intervention significantly increased the odds of receiving screening, compared with the website intervention (OR: 2.98; 95% confidence interval, 1.68-5.28).

CONCLUSIONS

Addition of PN to a website intervention did not improve adherence to a colorectal cancer screening recommendation overall; however, the addition of PN was more effective in increasing adherence among FDRs who needed screening immediately.

IMPACT

These findings provide important information as to when the additional costs of PN are needed to assure colorectal cancer screening among those at high risk for colorectal cancer.

Examining intrafamilial communication of colorectal cancer risk status to family members and kin responses to colonoscopy: a qualitative study

Background

First-degree relatives (FDRs) of probands with colorectal cancer (CRC) may be at increased risk of CRC and require colonoscopy. Proband disclosure about this risk and need for colonoscopy is essential for FDRs to take appropriate action. Low colonoscopy rates are reported among FDRs and little is known about the proband disclosure process. A better understanding of the barriers surrounding colonoscopy and disclosure is needed.

Methods

CRC probands (n = 16) and FDRs (n = 9), recruited from a Canadian CRC Consortium, completed interviews to determine barriers to disclosure and colonoscopy, respectively. Interviews were analyzed using thematic analysis and participants’ motivation to disclose to FDRs or undertake colonoscopy was categorized into Stages of Change (i.e., Precontemplation, Contemplation, Preparation, Action, or Maintenance) using the transtheoretical model.

Results

25% of probands had not disclosed to any first-degree kin and were categorized in the Precontemplation or Contemplation Stage of Change. Barriers to disclosure included lack of information, negative expectations about familial reaction, assuming FDRs were aware of risk or already being screened, dysfunctional family dynamics, and cultural barriers. 75% of FDRs were categorized in the Precontemplation or Contemplation Stage of Change. Barriers included negative perceptions about colonoscopy, health-care provider related factors, practical concerns, and lack of information about CRC, risk, and colonoscopy.

Conclusions

In the absence of barriers such as cost and accessibility, this Canadian sample still reported several challenges to disclosure and colonoscopy adherence. Future research should explore interventions such as motivational interviewing to improve proband disclosure and to increase FDR adherence to colonoscopy.

Understanding the contribution of family history to colorectal cancer risk and its clinical implications: A state-of-the-science review

Persons with a family history (FH) of colorectal cancer (CRC) or adenomas that are not due to known hereditary syndromes have an increased risk for CRC. An understanding of these risks, screening recommendations, and screening behaviors can inform strategies for reducing the CRC burden in these families. A comprehensive review of the literature published within the past 10 years has been performed to assess what is known about cancer risk, screening guidelines, adherence and barriers to screening, and effective interventions in persons with an FH of CRC and to identify FH tools used to identify these individuals and inform care. Existing data show that having 1 affected first-degree relative (FDR) increases the CRC risk 2-fold, and the risk increases with multiple affected FDRs and a younger age at diagnosis. There is variability in screening recommendations across consensus guidelines. Screening adherence is <50% and is lower in persons under the age of 50 years. A provider's recommendation, multiple affected relatives, and family encouragement facilitate screening; insufficient collection of FH, low knowledge of guidelines, and poor family communication are important barriers. Effective interventions incorporate strategies for overcoming barriers, but these have not been broadly tested in clinical settings. Four strategies for reducing CRC in persons with familial risk are suggested: 1) improving the collection and utilization of the FH of cancer, 2) establishing a consensus for screening guidelines by FH, 3) enhancing provider-patient knowledge of guidelines and communication about CRC risk, and 4) encouraging survivors to promote screening within their families and partnering with existing screening programs to expand their reach to high-risk groups. Cancer 2016. © 2016 American Cancer Society. Cancer 2016;122:2633-2645. © 2016 American Cancer Society.

Knowledge and Uptake of Genetic Counseling and Colonoscopic Screening Among Individuals at Increased Risk for Lynch Syndrome and their Endoscopists from the Family Health Promotion Project

OBJECTIVES

Individuals whose families meet the Amsterdam II clinical criteria for hereditary non-polyposis colorectal cancer are recommended to be referred for genetic counseling and to have colonoscopic screening every 1-2 years. To assess the uptake and knowledge of guideline-based genetic counseling and colonoscopic screening in unaffected members of families who meet Amsterdam II criteria and their treating endoscopists.

METHODS

Participants in the Family Health Promotion Project who met the Amsterdam II criteria were surveyed regarding their knowledge of risk-appropriate guidelines for genetic counseling and colonoscopy screening. Endoscopy/pathology reports were obtained from patients screened during the study to determine the follow-up recommendations made by their endoscopists. Survey responses were compared using Fisher's Exact and the χ(2) test. Concordance in participant/provider-reported surveillance interval was assessed using the kappa statistic.

RESULTS

Of the 165 participants, the majority (98%) agreed that genetics and family history are important predictors of CRC, and 63% had heard of genetic testing for CRC, although only 31% reported being advised to undergo genetic counseling by their doctor, and only 7% had undergone genetic testing. Only 26% of participants reported that they thought they should have colonoscopy every 1-2 years and 30% of endoscopists for these participants recommended 1-2-year follow-up colonoscopy. There was a 65% concordance (weighted kappa 0.42, 95% CI 0.24-0.61) between endoscopist recommendations and participant reports regarding screening intervals.

CONCLUSIONS

A minority of individuals meeting Amsterdam II criteria in this series have had genetic testing and reported accurate knowledge of risk-appropriate screening, and only a small percentage of their endoscopists provided them with the appropriate screening recommendations. There was moderate concordance between endoscopist recommendations and participant knowledge suggesting that future educational interventions need to target both health-care providers and their patients.

Family Ties: The Role of Family Context in Family Health History Communication About Cancer

Family health history about cancer is an important prevention and health promotion tool. Yet few studies have identified family context factors that promote such discussions. We explored relations among family context (cohesion, flexibility, and openness), self-efficacy, and cancer communication (gathering family history, sharing cancer risk information, and frequency) in a diverse group of women enrolled in a randomized control trial. Baseline survey data for 472 women were analyzed. The women's average age was 34 years, 59% identified as Black, 31% had graduated high school, and 75% reported a family history of any cancer. Results showed that greater family cohesion and flexibility were related to higher communication frequency and sharing cancer information. Women who reported greater self-efficacy were more likely to have gathered family history, shared cancer risk information, and communicated more frequently with relatives. Openness was not associated with communication but was related to greater family cohesion and flexibility. Adjusting for demographic variables, self-efficacy, and family cohesion significantly predicted communication frequency. Women with higher self-efficacy were also more likely to have gathered family health history about cancer and shared cancer risk information. Future research may benefit from considering family organization and self-efficacy when developing psychosocial theories that in turn inform cancer prevention interventions.

Tailored telephone counseling increases colorectal cancer screening

To compare the efficacy of two interventions to promote colorectal cancer screening participation and forward stage movement of colorectal cancer screening adoption among first-degree relatives of individuals diagnosed with adenomatous polyps. One hundred fifty-eight first-degree relatives of individuals diagnosed with adenomatous polyps were randomly assigned to receive one of two interventions to promote colorectal cancer screening. Participants received either a tailored telephone counseling plus brochures intervention or a non-tailored print brochures intervention. Data were collected at baseline and 3 months post-baseline. Group differences and the effect of the interventions on adherence and stage movement for colorectal cancer screening were examined using t-tests, chi-square tests, and logistic regression. Individuals in the tailored telephone counseling plus brochures group were significantly more likely to complete colorectal cancer screening and to move forward on stage of change for fecal occult blood test, any colorectal cancer test stage and stage of the risk-appropriate test compared with individuals in the non-tailored brochure group at 3 months post-baseline. A tailored telephone counseling plus brochures intervention successfully promoted forward stage movement and colorectal cancer screening adherence among first-degree relatives of individuals diagnosed with adenomatous polyps.

Practical opportunities to improve early detection and prevention of colorectal cancer (CRC) in members of high-risk families

Colorectal cancer (CRC) incidence and mortality are steadily declining and CRC screening rates are increasing in the United States. Although this a very good news, several definable groups still have very low screening rates including younger (under age 50) members of high-risk CRC families. This opinion piece describes five strategies that could be incorporated into routine practice to improve identification and guideline-based screening in members of high-risk families. Routine incorporation of a simple family history screening tool and outreach to high-risk family members could substantially improve guideline-based screening in this population. Identification of CRCs and advanced adenomas in the endoscopy suite defines another group of high-risk families for similar outreach. Lynch syndrome families can be identified by testing CRCs and selected adenomas for microsatellite instability or loss of DNA repair protein expression. Finally, selective addition of aspirin to surveillance endoscopy can decrease the risk of new adenomas and CRCs. The rationale for these strategies as well as mechanisms for their implementation and evaluation in clinical practice is described.

A randomized trial to increase colonoscopy screening in members of high-risk families in the colorectal cancer family registry and cancer genetics network

BACKGROUND

Individuals with a strong family history of colorectal cancer have significant risk for colorectal cancer, although adherence to colonoscopy screening in these groups remains low. This study assessed whether a tailored telephone counseling intervention can increase adherence to colonoscopy in members of high-risk families in a randomized, controlled trial.

METHODS

Eligible participants were recruited from two national cancer registries if they had a first-degree relative with colorectal cancer under age 60 or multiple affected family members, which included families that met the Amsterdam criteria for hereditary non-polyposis colon cancer (HNPCC), and if they were due for colonoscopy within 24 months. Participants were randomized to receive a tailored telephone intervention grounded in behavioral theory or a mailed packet with general information about screening. Colonoscopy status was assessed through follow-up surveys and endoscopy reports. Cox proportional hazards models were used to assess intervention effect.

RESULTS

Of the 632 participants (ages 25-80), 60% were female, the majority were White, non-Hispanic, educated, and had health insurance. Colonoscopy adherence increased 11 percentage points in the tailored telephone intervention group, compared with no significant change in the mailed group. The telephone intervention was associated with a 32% increase in screening adherence compared with the mailed intervention (HR, 1.32; P = 0.01).

CONCLUSIONS

A tailored telephone intervention can effectively increase colonoscopy adherence in high-risk persons. This intervention has the potential for broad dissemination to healthcare organizations or other high-risk populations.

IMPACT

Increasing adherence to colonoscopy among persons with increased colorectal cancer risk could effectively reduce incidence and mortality from this disease.

Telehealth personalized cancer risk communication to motivate colonoscopy in relatives of patients with colorectal cancer: the family CARE Randomized controlled trial

PURPOSE

The rate of adherence to regular colonoscopy screening in individuals at increased familial risk of colorectal cancer (CRC) is suboptimal, especially among rural and other geographically underserved populations. Remote interventions may overcome geographic and system-level barriers. We compared the efficacy of a telehealth-based personalized risk assessment and communication intervention with a mailed educational brochure for improving colonoscopy screening among at-risk relatives of patients with CRC.

METHODS

Eligible individuals age 30 to 74 years who were not up-to-date with risk-appropriate screening and were not candidates for genetic testing were recruited after contacting patients with CRC or their next of kin in five states. Enrollees were randomly assigned as family units to either an active, personalized intervention that incorporated evidence-based risk communication and behavior change techniques, or a mailed educational brochure. The primary outcome was medically verified colonoscopy within 9 months of the intervention.

RESULTS

Of the 481 eligible and randomly assigned at-risk relatives, 79.8% completed the outcome assessments within 9 months; 35.4% of those in the personalized intervention group and 15.7% of those in the comparison group obtained a colonoscopy. In an intent-to-treat analysis, the telehealth group was almost three times as likely to get screened as the low-intensity comparison group (odds ratio, 2.83; 95% CI, 1.87 to 4.28; P < .001). Persons residing in rural areas and those with lower incomes benefitted at the same level as did urban residents.

CONCLUSION

Remote personalized interventions that consider family history and incorporate evidence-based risk communication and behavior change strategies may promote risk-appropriate screening in close relatives of patients with CRC.

Personalised risk communication for informed decision making about taking screening tests

BACKGROUND

There is a trend towards greater patient involvement in healthcare decisions. Although screening is usually perceived as good for the health of the population, there are risks associated with the tests involved. Achieving both adequate involvement of consumers and informed decision making are now seen as important goals for screening programmes. Personalised risk estimates have been shown to be effective methods of risk communication.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of personalised risk communication on informed decision making by individuals taking screening tests. We also assess individual components that constitute informed decisions.

SEARCH METHODS

Two authors searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL, The Cochrane Library, Issue 3, 2012), MEDLINE (OvidSP), EMBASE (OvidSP), CINAHL (EbscoHOST) and PsycINFO (OvidSP) without language restrictions. We searched from 2006 to March 2012. The date ranges for the previous searches were from 1989 to December 2005 for PsycINFO and from 1985 to December 2005 for other databases. For the original version of this review, we also searched CancerLit  and Science Citation Index (March 2001). We also reviewed the reference lists and conducted citation searches of included studies and other systematic reviews in the field, to identify any studies missed during the initial search.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials incorporating an intervention with a 'personalised risk communication element' for individuals undergoing screening procedures, and reporting measures of informed decisions and also cognitive, affective, or behavioural outcomes addressing the decision by such individuals, of whether or not to undergo screening.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two authors independently assessed each included trial for risk of bias, and extracted data. We extracted data about the nature and setting of interventions, and relevant outcome data. We used standard statistical methods to combine data using RevMan version 5, including analysis according to different levels of detail of personalised risk communication, different conditions for screening, and studies based only on high-risk participants rather than people at 'average' risk. 

MAIN RESULTS

We included 41 studies involving 28,700 people. Nineteen new studies were identified in this update, adding to the 22 studies included in the previous two iterations of the review. Three studies measured informed decision with regard to the uptake of screening following personalised risk communication as a part of their intervention. All of these three studies were at low risk of bias and there was strong evidence that the interventions enhanced informed decision making, although with heterogeneous results. Overall 45.2% (592/1309) of participants who received personalised risk information made informed choices, compared to 20.2% (229/1135) of participants who received generic risk information. The overall odds ratios (ORs) for informed decision were 4.48 (95% confidence interval (CI) 3.62 to 5.53 for fixed effect) and 3.65 (95% CI 2.13 to 6.23 for random effects). Nine studies measured increase in knowledge, using different scales. All of these studies showed an increase in knowledge with personalised risk communication. In three studies the interventions showed a trend towards more accurate risk perception, but the evidence was of poor quality. Four out of six studies reported non-significant changes in anxiety following personalised risk communication to the participants. Overall there was a small non-significant decrease in the anxiety scores. Most studies (32/41) measured the uptake of screening tests following interventions. Our results (OR 1.15 (95% CI 1.02 to 1.29)) constitute low quality evidence, consistent with a small effect, that personalised risk communication in which a risk score was provided (6 studies) or the participants were given their categorised risk (6 studies), increases uptake of screening tests. 

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is strong evidence from three trials that personalised risk estimates incorporated within communication interventions for screening programmes enhance informed choices. However the evidence for increasing the uptake of such screening tests with similar interventions is weak, and it is not clear if this increase is associated with informed choices. Studies included a diverse range of screening programmes. Therefore, data from this review do not allow us to draw conclusions about the best interventions to deliver personalised risk communication for enhancing informed decisions. The results are dominated by findings from the topic area of mammography and colorectal cancer. Caution is therefore required in generalising from these results, and particularly for clinical topics other than mammography and colorectal cancer screening.