Cancer Screening: One-on-One Education for Clients – Colorectal Cancer

CDC

An Evidence-Based Practice

Description

One-on-one education delivers information to individuals about indications for, benefits of, and ways to overcome barriers to cancer screening with the goal of informing, encouraging, and motivating them to seek recommended screening. These messages are delivered by healthcare workers or other health professionals, lay health advisors, or volunteers, and are conducted by telephone or in person in medical, community, worksite, or household settings.

These messages can be untailored to address the overall target population or tailored with the intent to reach one specific person, based on characteristics unique to that person, related to the outcome of interest, and derived from an individual assessment. One-on-one education is often accompanied by supporting materials delivered via small media (e.g., brochures), and may also involve client reminders.

The Community Preventive Services Task Force recommends the use of one-on-one education to increase screening for breast and cervical cancers on the basis of strong evidence of effectiveness. The Task Force also recommends the use of one-on-one education to increase colorectal cancer screening with fecal occult blood testing (FOBT) based on sufficient evidence of effectiveness.

Goal / Mission

To increase screening for colorectal cancer

Results / Accomplishments

Results From The Systematic Reviews:
Colorectal Cancer:
Combined evidence from the original and updated reviews included 7 studies with 12 study arms.
• Screening by FOBT: median increase of 19.1 percentage points (IQI: 12.9 to 25.1 percentage points; 10 study arms).
• Screening by a colonoscopy: range from 0 to 11 percentage points increase (2 study arms).
• Screening by flexible sigmoidoscopy: no change reported (1 study arm).
• Screening by any methods: range from 1 to 11 percentage points increase (2 study arms).
• Tailored interventions showed increase ranging from 1 to 20.1 percentage points (2 studies)
• Untailored interventions showed a median increase of 20.7 percentage points (IQI: 13.8 to 25.8 percentage points; 3 studies with 8 study arms)

About this Promising Practice

Primary Contact
The Community Guide
1600 Clifton Rd, NE
MS E69
Atlanta, GA 30329
(404) 498-1827
communityguide@cdc.gov
https://www.thecommunityguide.org/
Topics
Health / Cancer
Source
Community Guide Branch Epidemiology and Analysis Program Office, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
Location
USA
For more details
https://www.thecommunityguide.org/findings/cancer-...
Target Audience
Adults

Related Promising Practices

  1. CDC COMMUNITY GUIDE: Cancer Screening: One-on-One Education for Clients – Breast Cancer
  2. CDC COMMUNITY GUIDE: Cancer Prevention & Control, Client-Oriented Screening Interventions: Reducing Structural Barriers: Breast Cancer
  3. CDC COMMUNITY GUIDE: Cancer Prevention & Control, Provider-Oriented Screening Interventions: Provider Assessment & Feedback
  4. CDC COMMUNITY GUIDE: Cancer Prevention & Control, Client-Oriented Screening Interventions: Reducing Structural Barriers: Cervical Cancer
  5. CDC COMMUNITY GUIDE: Cancer Prevention & Control, Client-Oriented Screening Interventions: Reducing Structural Barriers: Colorectal Cancer
  6. Increased Medicaid Reimbursements to Enhance Breast/Cervical Cancer Screening Project

More

Related Content for: Cancer Screening: One-on-One Education for Clients – Colorectal Cancer

An Evidence-Based Practice meets the following HCI criteria:

  1. The program description includes at a minimum: the sponsoring organization, program goals, program implementation steps, and outcomes that have demonstrated program success in achieving the program goal in one or more localities.
  2. The results from an evaluation of the program include quantitative measures showing improvement in the outcome(s) of interest after the implementation of the program (i.e. increase in smoking cessation, not just the delivery of a smoking cessation program). The outcome measure(s) is/are compared at relevant time periods before and after the intervention or program implementation. Alternatively, the evaluation study compares the outcome(s) between an intervention group and an appropriate control group.
  3. The study is of peer-review quality and presents numbers in a scientific manner; measurements of precision and reliability are included (e.g. confidence intervals, standard errors), results from statistical tests show a significant difference or change in the outcome measure(s), and relevant point estimates and p-values are presented. Note: if the results from an evaluation of a program are presented in a scientific manner and the outcome measure is improved compared to the baseline measurement or the control group but the difference is not statistically significant, the practice is classified as effective and not evidence-based.