Colorectal Cancer Screening Decision Research Articles

Perceived Economic Strain, Subjective Social Status, and Colorectal Cancer Screening Utilization in U.S. Men—A Cross-Sectional Analysis

Although socioeconomic status (SES) is fundamentally related to underutilization of colorectal cancer (CRC) screening, the role of perceived economic strain and subjective social status with CRC screening is understudied. The aim of this study was to investigate whether greater perceived economic strain or lower subjective social status would decrease the odds of CRC screening uptake and being up-to-date with guideline-recommended CRC screening. We also explored interactions with household income and educational attainment. Cross-sectional survey-based data from men aged 45–75 years living in the United States (N = 499) were collected in February 2022. Study outcomes were ever completing a stool- or exam-based CRC screening test and being up-to-date with CRC screening. Perceived economic strain and subjective social status were the predictors. We conducted logistic regression models to estimate odds ratios (OR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI). Greater perceptions of economic strain decreased odds of being up-to-date with CRC screening. Household income modified the association between perceived economic strain and completing a stool-based test; the association was stronger for men from lower-income households. In unadjusted models, higher subjective social status increased odds of completing an exam-based test and being up-to-date with CRC screening. Our findings suggest that experiencing economic strain may interfere with men’s CRC screening decisions and may capture additional information about barriers to CRC screening utilization beyond those captured by income or education.

Personalized Multilevel Intervention for Improving Appropriate Use of Colorectal Cancer Screening in Older Adults

Despite guideline recommendations, clinicians do not systematically use prior screening or health history to guide colorectal cancer (CRC) screening decisions in older adults. To evaluate the effect of a personalized multilevel intervention on screening orders in older adults due for average-risk CRC screening. Interventional 2-group parallel unmasked cluster randomized clinical trial conducted from November 2015 to February 2019 at 2 US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) facilities: 1 academic VA medical center and 1 of its connected outpatient clinics. Randomization at the primary care physician/clinician (PCP) level, stratified by study site and clinical full-time equivalency. Participants were 431 average-risk, screen-due US veterans aged 70 to 75 years attending a primary care visit. Data analysis was performed from August 2018 to August 2023. The intervention group received a multilevel intervention including a decision-aid booklet with detailed information on screening benefits and harms, personalized for each participant based on age, sex, prior screening, and comorbidity. The control group received a multilevel intervention including a screening informational booklet. All participants received PCP education and system-level modifications to support personalized screening. The primary outcome was whether screening was ordered within 2 weeks of clinic visit. Secondary outcomes were concordance between screening orders and screening benefit and screening utilization within 6 months. A total of 436 patients were consented, and 431 were analyzed across 67 PCPs. Patients had a mean (SD) age of 71.5 (1.7) years; 424 were male (98.4%); 374 were White (86.8%); 89 were college graduates (21.5%); and 351 (81.4%) had undergone prior screening. A total of 258 (59.9%) were randomized to intervention, and 173 (40.1%) to control. Screening orders were placed for 162 of 258 intervention patients (62.8%) vs 114 of 173 control patients (65.9%) (adjusted difference, -4.0 percentage points [pp]; 95% CI, -15.4 to 7.4 pp). In a prespecified interaction analysis, the proportion receiving orders was lower in the intervention group than in the control group for those in the lowest benefit quartile (59.4% vs 71.1%). In contrast, the proportion receiving orders was higher in the intervention group than in the control group for those in the highest benefit quartile (67.6% vs 52.2%) (interaction P = .049). Fewer intervention patients (106 of 256 [41.4%]) utilized screening overall at 6 months than controls (96 of 173 [55.9%]) (adjusted difference, -13.4 pp; 95% CI, -25.3 to -1.6 pp). In this cluster randomized clinical trial, patients who were presented with personalized information about screening benefits and harms in the context of a multilevel intervention were more likely to receive screening orders concordant with benefit and were less likely to utilize screening. ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02027545.

Colorectal Cancer Screening Decision Based on Predicted Risk: Protocol for a Pilot Randomized Controlled Trial.

Incidence of and mortality from colorectal cancer (CRC) can be effectively reduced by screening with the fecal immunochemical test (FIT) or colonoscopy. Individual risk to develop CRC within 15 years varies from <1% to >15% among people aged 50 to 75 years. Communicating personalized CRC risk and appropriate screening recommendations could improve the risk-benefit balance of screening test allocations and optimize the use of limited colonoscopy resources. However, significant uncertainty exists regarding the feasibility and efficacy of risk-based screening. We aim to study the effect of communicating individual CRC risk and a risk-based recommendation of the FIT or colonoscopy on participants' choice of screening test. We will also assess the feasibility of a larger clinical trial designed to evaluate the impact of personalized screening on clinical outcomes. We will perform a pilot randomized controlled trial among 880 residents aged 50 to 69 years eligible to participate in the organized screening program of the Vaud canton, Switzerland. Participants will be recruited by mail by the Vaud CRC screening program. Primary and secondary outcomes will be self-assessed through questionnaires. The risk score will be calculated using the open-source QCancer calculator that was validated in the United Kingdom. Participants will be stratified into 3 groups-low (<3%), moderate (3% to <6%), and high (≥6%) risk-according to their 15-year CRC risk and randomized within each risk stratum. The intervention group participants will receive a newly designed brochure with their personalized risk and screening recommendations. The control group will receive the usual brochure of the Vaud CRC screening program. Our primary outcome, measured using a self-administered questionnaire, is appropriate screening uptake 6 months after the intervention. Screening will be defined as appropriate if participants at high risk undertake colonoscopy and participants at low risk undertake the FIT. We will also measure the acceptability of the risk score and screening recommendations and the psychological factors influencing screening behavior. We will also assess the feasibility of a full-scale randomized controlled trial. We expect that a total sample of 880 individuals will allow us to detect a difference of 10% (α=5%) between groups. The main outcome will be analyzed using a 2-tailed chi-squared test. We expect that appropriate screening uptake will be higher in the intervention group. No difference in overall screening uptake is expected. We will test the impact of personalized risk information and screening recommendations on participants' choice of screening test in an organized screening program. This study should advance our understanding of the feasibility of large-scale risk-based CRC screening. Our results may provide insights into the optimization of CRC screening by offering screening options with a better risk-benefit balance and optimizing the use of resources. ClinicalTrials.gov NCT05357508; https://www.clinicaltrials.gov/study/NCT05357508. DERR1-10.2196/46865.

Association of Preventive Care Attitudes and Beliefs with Colorectal Cancer Screening History among African American Patients of Community Health Centers.

Colorectal cancer (CRC) is the third most common cancer and third leading cause of cancer-related death among African Americans in the United States. However, when detected early, CRC is treatable and survival rates are high. CRC health disparities for African Americans compared with other groups may be due in part to lower screening adherence and later stage diagnosis. The objective of this research phase was to test predictors of ever having received CRC screening (i.e., self-report of lifetime receipt of CRC screening) using survey measures in the domains of healthcare communication, trust in doctors, CRC perceived susceptibility, CRC worry, negative cancer beliefs, CRC screening self-efficacy, and cultural constructs for CRC screening in a sample of African American community health center patients. The study recruited 115 African American patients between the ages of 45 to 64years old from community health centers in north Florida to complete the baseline survey. Our results show significant differences in CRC screening history by age, marital status, level of mistrust of healthcare providers, and level of empowerment toward cancer screening. To increase CRC screening in this population, the study findings suggest development of intervention programs that focus on priority populations of younger, unmarried African Americans, especially given the current trend of early onset CRC. Moreover, survival rates are lower for unmarried and younger African Americans relative to older and married individuals. Such interventions should also aim to increase trust in healthcare providers and increase empowerment for CRC screening decision making to increase screening participation.

Exploring the Acceptability of Text Messages to Inform and Support Shared Decision-making for Colorectal Cancer Screening: Online Panel Survey.

While online portals may be helpful to engage patients in shared decision-making at the time of cancer screening, because of known disparities in patient portal use, sole reliance on portals to support cancer screening decision-making could exacerbate well-known disparities in this health care area. Innovative approaches are needed to engage patients in health care decision-making and to support equitable shared decision-making. We assessed the acceptability of text messages to engage sociodemographically diverse individuals in colorectal cancer (CRC) screening decisions and support shared decision-making in practice. We developed a brief text message program offering educational information consisting of components of shared decision-making regarding CRC screening (eg, for whom screening is recommended, screening test options, and pros/cons of options). The program and postprogram survey were offered to members of an online panel. The outcome of interest was program acceptability measured by observed program engagement, participant-reported acceptability, and willingness to use similar programs (behavioral intent). We evaluated acceptability among historically marginalized categories of people defined by income, literacy, and race. Of the 289 participants, 115 reported having a low income, 146 were Black/African American, and 102 had less than extreme confidence in their health literacy. With one exception, we found equal or greater acceptability, regardless of measure, within each of the marginalized categories of people compared to their counterparts. The exception was that participants reporting an income below US $50,000 were less likely to engage with sufficient content of the program to learn that there was a choice among different CRC screening tests (difference -10.4%, 95% CI -20.1 to -0.8). Of note, Black/African American participants reported being more likely to sign up to receive text messages from their doctor's office compared to white participants (difference 18.7%, 95% CI 7.0-30.3). Study findings demonstrate general acceptance of text messages to inform and support CRC screening shared decision-making.

Colorectal Cancer Screening Decisions From Student-Led Telemedicine Initiative During COVID-19.

With the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic, there has been a significant decrease in colorectal cancer (CRC) screening leading to delayed diagnoses and increased cancer deaths. To mitigate these burgeoning gaps in care, we developed a medical student-led service learning project aimed at improving rates of colorectal cancer screening at the Farrell Health Center (FHC), a primary care practice within the Ambulatory Care Network (ACN) at New York-Presbyterian Hospital. A cohort of 973 FHC patients aged 50-75 years were identified as possibly overdue for screening. Student volunteers reviewed patient charts to confirm screening eligibility and then contacted patients to offer colonoscopy or stool DNA test. Following the patient outreach intervention, medical student volunteers completed a questionnaire to assess the educational value for the service-learning experience. Fifty-three percent of identified patients were due for CRC screening; 67.8% of eligible patients were reached by volunteers. Among the patients reached, 47.0% were referred for CRC screening. No statistical significance was observed between likelihood of CRC screening acceptance and patient age or sex; 87% of medical student volunteers felt that the service-learning project was a valuable educational experience. The student-led patient telehealth outreach program is an effective model for identifying and referring patients overdue for CRC screening and an enriching educational experience for preclinical medical students. The structure provides a valuable framework to address gaps in health care maintenance.

Practical considerations for colorectal cancer screening in older adults.

Recent guidelines recommend that colorectal cancer (CRC) screening after age 75 be considered on an individualized basis, and discourage screening for people over 85 due to competing causes of mortality. Given the heterogeneity in the health of older individuals, and lack of data within current guidelines for personalized CRC screening approaches, there remains a need for a clearer framework to inform clinical decision-making. A revision of the current approach to CRC screening in older adults is even more compelling given the improvements in CRC treatment, post-treatment survival, and increasing life expectancy in the population. In this review, we aim to examine the personalization of CRC screening cessation based on specific factors influencing life and health expectancy such as comorbidity, frailty, and cognitive status. We will also review screening modalities and endoscopic technique for minimizing risk, the risks of screening unique to older adults, and CRC treatment outcomes in older patients, in order to provide important information to aid CRC screening decisions for this age group. This review article offers a unique approach to this topic from both the gastroenterologist and geriatrician perspective by reviewing the use of specific clinical assessment tools, and addressing technical aspects of screening colonoscopy and periprocedural management to mitigate screening-related complications.

Patient preferences on general health and colorectal cancer screening decision-making: Results from a national survey

ObjectiveWe examined patient preferences regarding colorectal cancer (CRC) screening decision-making and factors associated with these preferences among screening-eligible US adults. MethodsThrough a national survey of 1595 US adults ages 40–75 (response rate: 31.3%), we measured general medical decision-making and CRC screening decision-making preferences (0–100, 100 = highest desire for involvement) and preferred control level over three CRC screening decisions (whether to screen, what method to use, and when to screen). Analyses focused on respondents aged 45–75 at average CRC risk (N = 1062). ResultsRespondents expressed strong desire for involvement in general medical decision-making and CRC screening decision-making (Mean = 68.1, 64.4). Over half of respondents reported preferring having equal control as their providers over whether to screen, what method to use, and when to screen. Women and people with higher education expressed higher desire for involvement in general medical decision-making. For CRC screening decision-making, variations exist in preferred level of involvement and control by race/ethnicity, educational attainment, insurance status, and recency of routine checkup. ConclusionMost respondents preferred a collaborative process of CRC screening decision-making, while variations existed across subgroups. Practice implicationsProviders should assess patients’ values and preferences and involve them in CRC screening decision-making at a level they are comfortable with.

Additional Comments on "Testing a Culturally Adapted Colorectal Cancer Screening Decision Aid Among American Indians: Results from a Pre-Post Trial".

Additional Comments on "Testing a Culturally Adapted Colorectal Cancer Screening Decision Aid Among American Indians: Results from a Pre-Post Trial".

The EU-TOPIA evaluation tool: An online modelling-based tool for informing breast, cervical, and colorectal cancer screening decisions in Europe.

BackgroundAiming to support European countries in improving their breast, cervical, and colorectal cancer (CRC) screening programmes, the EU-TOPIA consortium has developed an online user-friendly tool (the EU-TOPIA evaluation tool; https://miscan.eu-topia.org) based on the Microsimulation Screening Analysis (MISCAN) model.MethodsWe designed an online platform that allows stakeholders to use their country-specific data (demographic, epidemiological, and cancer screening information) to quantify future harms and benefits of different cancer screening scenarios in their country. Current cancer screening programmes and impacts of potential changes in screening protocols (such as extending target ages or increasing screening attendance) can be simulated. Results are scaled to the country-specific population. To illustrate the tool, we used the tool to simulate two different CRC screening scenarios in the Netherlands: biennial fecal immunochemical testing (FIT) in ages 55–75 and colonoscopy every ten years in ages 55–75. Data from the Dutch screening programme was used to inform both scenarios.ResultsA total of 482,700 CRC cases and 178,000 CRC deaths were estimated in the Netherlands with FIT screening (for individuals aged 40–100 years, 2018–2050), with 47.3 million FITs performed (1.92 million positives of which 1.64 million adhered to diagnostic colonoscopy). With colonoscopy screening, CRC incidence and mortality were, respectively, up to 17% and 14% lower than in the current FIT screening programme, requiring, however, a colonoscopy demand that was 7-fold higher.ConclusionsOur study presents an essential online tool for stakeholders and medical societies to quantify estimates of benefits and harms of early cancer detection in Europe.

Development and Validation of Three Regional Microsimulation Models for Predicting Colorectal Cancer Screening Benefits in Europe.

Background. Validated microsimulation models have been shown to be useful tools in providing support for colorectal cancer (CRC) screening decisions. Aiming to assist European countries in reducing CRC mortality, we developed and validated three regional models for evaluating CRC screening in Europe. Methods. Microsimulation Screening Analysis–Colon (MISCAN-Colon) model versions for Italy, Slovenia, and Finland were quantified using data from different national institutions. These models were validated against the best available evidence for the effectiveness of screening from their region (when available): the Screening for COlon REctum (SCORE) trial and the Florentine fecal immunochemical test (FIT) screening study for Italy; the Norwegian Colorectal Cancer Prevention (NORCCAP) trial and the guaiac fecal occult blood test (gFOBT) Finnish population-based study for Finland. When published evidence was not available (Slovenia), the model was validated using cancer registry data. Results. Our three models reproduced age-specific CRC incidence rates and stage distributions in the prescreening period. Moreover, the Italian and Finnish models replicated CRC mortality reductions (reasonably) well against the best available evidence. CRC mortality reductions were predicted slightly larger than those observed (except for the Florentine FIT study), but consistently within the corresponding 95% confidence intervals. Conclusions. Our findings corroborate the MISCAN-Colon reliability in supporting decision making on CRC screening. Furthermore, our study provides the model structure for an additional tool (EU-TOPIA CRC evaluation tool: http://miscan.eu-topia.org) that aims to help policymakers and researchers monitoring or improving CRC screening in Europe.

Testing a Culturally Adapted Colorectal Cancer Screening Decision Aid Among American Indians: Results from a Pre-Post Trial.

Purpose: American Indian adults have not experienced decreases in colorectal cancer (CRC) incidence and mortality observed in other races or ethnic groups and their screening rates are low. Decision aids that explain available CRC screening options are one potential strategy to promote screening. The goal of this study was to test the effect of a culturally adapted decision aid on CRC-related outcomes among American Indian adults, including screening-related knowledge, attitudes, self-efficacy, intentions, and screening modality preferences.Methods: We recruited American Indian adults aged 50–75 years who were not current with CRC screening. Participants viewed a 9-min multimedia decision aid that used narrative vignettes to provide educational information about screening along with messages to address culturally specific barriers and values uncovered in formative research. We conducted a single-arm (pre–post) study and assessed screening-related outcomes at baseline and immediately after viewing the decision aid.Results: Among n=104 participants, knowledge scores increased from a mean of 36% correct to 76% correct. Participants also had statistically significant increases in positive attitudes, perceived social norms, self-efficacy, and intent. The proportion of participants who identified a preference for a specific CRC screening modality rose from 81% identified at pre-intervention to 93% post-intervention (p=0.013).Conclusion: Our study provides promising new findings that our culturally adapted decision aid is efficacious in educating American Indian adults about CRC screening and increases their screening intentions and ability to state modality preferences. Future research is needed to test the decision aid as a component of CRC screening interventions with American Indian adults.

Challenges and opportunities using online portals to recruit diverse patients to behavioral trials.

We describe the use of an online patient portal to recruit and enroll primary care patients in a randomized trial testing the effectiveness of a colorectal cancer (CRC) screening decision support program. We use multiple logistic regression to identify patient characteristics associated with trial recruitment, enrollment, and engagement. We found that compared to Whites, Blacks had lower odds of viewing the portal message (OR = 0.46, 95% CI = 0.37-0.57), opening the attached link containing the study material (OR = 0.75, 95% CI = 0.62-0.92), and consenting to participate in the trial (OR = 0.85, 95% CI = 0.67-0.93). We also found that compared to Whites, Asians had lower odds of viewing the portal message (OR = 0.53, 95% CI = 0.33-0.64), opening the attached link containing the study material (OR = 0.76, 95% CI = 0.54-0.97), consenting to participate in the trial (OR = 0.68, 95% CI = 0.53-0.95), and completing the trial's baseline questionnaire (OR = 0.59, 95% CI = 0.36-0.90). While portals offer an opportunity to mitigate human bias in trial invitations, because of racial disparities-not only in who has a portal account, but in how they interact with trial recruitment and enrollment material within the portal-using portals alone for trial recruitment may generate study samples that are not racially diverse.

Improving Colorectal Cancer Screening Decision Making Processes

Introduction: Although shared decision making is recommended for cancer screening, it is not routinely completed in practice because of time constraints. We evaluated a process for improving decision making about colorectal cancer (CRC) screening using mailed decision aids (DA) with follow-up telephone support in primary care practices. Methods: We identified patients aged 50-75 who were not up to date with CRC screening in three primary care practices. DA were distributed via mail with telephone follow-up to eligible patients, and charts were reviewed six months later for CRC screening completion. Results: Among 1,064 eligible patients who received the mailed DA, 513 (48.2%) were reached by phone. During the six months after the intervention, 148/1064 (13.9%) patients were screened for CRC (4.8% underwent FIT, 9.1% underwent colonoscopy). Younger patients (aged 50-54) had higher rates of any screening (32.4%) compared with all other age groups (range 12.8%-19.6%), p=0.026, while Medicaid patients had the lowest rates of screening (4.0%), and insured patients had the highest rates (45.3%), p=0.003. Overall, 113/513 (22.0%) who were reached by phone went on to complete screening within 6 months, compared with 35/551 (6.4%) of patients who were not reached by phone (p Conclusion: A standard process for identifying patients unscreened for CRC and DA distribution via mail with telephone decision support modestly increased CRC screening and is consistent with the goal of providing preference-sensitive care and informed decision making. Improving care processes to include decision support outside of office visits is possible in primary care practices.

Development and pilot-testing of a colorectal cancer screening decision aid for individuals with varying health literacy levels

ObjectiveMaking an informed decision about colorectal cancer screening requires health literacy. Our aim was to develop and pilot-test a computer-based decision aid to support informed decision making about whether or not to participate in colorectal cancer screening for individuals with varying health literacy levels in the Netherlands. MethodsFirst, we designed and adapted the decision aid prototype among 25 individuals with low (n = 15) and adequate (n = 10) health literacy. Second, we used a before/after study to assess changes in knowledge, attitude, intention, decisional conflict, deliberation, anxiety and risk perception in an online survey among 81 individuals eligible for colorectal cancer screening with low (n = 35) and adequate (n = 46) health literacy. ResultsThe decision aid was acceptable, comprehensible, reduced decisional conflict, increased deliberation and improved knowledge about colorectal cancer screening, but not about colorectal cancer, among individuals with adequate and low health literacy. Usability was slightly higher for participants with adequate health literacy compared to those with low health literacy. ConclusionThe decision aid is promising in supporting informed decision making about colorectal cancer screening, also among individuals with lower health literacy. Practice implicationsFurther refinement of interactive features, such as videos, animations and the values clarification exercise, is needed to increase the usability of the decision aid.

How narratives influence colorectal cancer screening decision making and uptake: A realist review.

BackgroundAlthough narratives have been found to affect decisions about preventive behaviours, including participation in cancer screening, the underlying mechanisms of narratives remain unclear.ObjectiveThe purpose of this study was to summarize and synthesize existing literature on narrative interventions in the context of colorectal cancer screening. Our main research question was as follows: How, when and for whom do narratives work context of decision making about colorectal cancer screening participation?MethodsWe undertook a realist review to collect evidence on narratives in the context of colorectal cancer screening. A search of the literature was performed in Embase, MEDLINE/PubMed, Cinahl and PsycINFO. We included empirical evaluations (qualitative or quantitative) of narrative interventions. In total, 15 studies met the inclusion criteria. A content‐based taxonomy of patient narrative types in decision aids formed the basis for our initial programme theory.Main resultWe identified four mechanisms: (a) process narratives that address perceived barriers towards screening lead to improved affective forecasting, (b) experience narratives that demonstrate the screening procedure lead to increased self‐efficacy, (c) experience narratives that depict experiences from similar others lead to more engagement and (d) outcome narratives that focus on outcomes of colorectal cancer (CRC) screening decision decrease or increase fear of colorectal cancer. The evidence was limited on which narrative type may facilitate or bias informed decision making in colorectal cancer screening.Discussion and conclusionThe findings indicate the importance of more detailed descriptions of narrative interventions in order to understand how mechanisms may facilitate or bias informed decision making in colorectal cancer screening.

Demographic, health, and attitudinal factors predictive of cancer screening decisions in older adults.

Many older adults receive routine cancer screening even when it is no longer recommended. We sought to identify demographic, health-related, and attitudinal factors that are most predictive of continued breast, colorectal, and prostate cancer screening decisions in older adults under various scenarios. A sample of adults age 65+ (n = 1272) were recruited from a nationally representative panel in November 2016, of which 881 (69.3%) completed our survey. Participants were presented vignettes in which we experimentally varied a hypothetical patient's life expectancy, age, quality of life, and physician screening recommendation. The dependent variable was the choice to continue cancer screening in the vignette. Classification and regression tree (CART) analysis was used to identify characteristics most predictive of screening decisions; both the participants' characteristics and the hypothetical patient's characteristics in the vignettes were included in the analysis. CART analysis uses recursive partitioning to create a classification tree in which variables predictive of the outcome are included as hierarchical tree nodes. We used automated ten-fold cross-validation to select the tree with lowest misclassification and highest predictive accuracy. Participants' attitude towards cancer screening was most predictive of choosing screening. Among those who agreed with the statement “I plan to get screened for cancer for as long as I live” (n = 300, 31.9%), 73.2% chose screening and 57.2% would still choose screening if hypothetical patient had 1-year life expectancy. For this subset of older adults with enthusiasm towards screening even when presented with scenario involving limited life expectancy, efforts are needed to improve informed decision-making about screening.

Randomised trial to evaluate the effectiveness and impact of offering postvisit decision support and assistance in obtaining physician-recommended colorectal cancer screening: the e-assist: Colon Health study—a protocol study

IntroductionHow to provide practice-integrated decision support to patients remains a challenge. We are testing the effectiveness of a practice-integrated programme targeting patients with a physician recommendation for colorectal cancer (CRC)...

Predicting Colonoscopy Screening Behavior and Future Screening Intentions for African Americans Older than 50 Years

African Americans experience a disproportionate burden of morbidity and mortality from colorectal cancer, which may be due to low adherence to screening recommendations. Previous studies have found relationships between decision-making factors and screening behavior, but few have looked at both cognitive and affective factors or within a specifically African American sample. To better understand determinants that drive screening behavior, this study examines affective, cognitive, and social variables as predictors of colonoscopy in an age-eligible African American population. Participants completed surveys assessing affective associations with colonoscopy, perceived benefits and barriers, self-efficacy, knowledge, fear of colonoscopy, perceived risk, and colorectal cancer worry and fear. Regression analysis was used to model decision-making constructs as predictors of screening behavior/intentions. Affective, cognitive, and health care experience variables predicted colonoscopy completion and intentions. Provider-level factors and previous cancer screenings predicted prior screening only, but not intentions. Affective and cognitive components of perceived risk were associated with decreased likelihood of colonoscopy behavior, but increased likelihood of colonoscopy intentions. These findings suggest that colonoscopy decision making involves a complex array of both cognitive and affective determinants. This work extends our knowledge of colorectal cancer screening decision making by evaluating the effects of these multiple determinants on screening behavior in an African American sample. Future work exploring the interplay of affect and cognitions as influences on colonoscopy decision making and how health care experiences may moderate this effect is needed to develop effective intervention approaches and reduce screening disparities.

A Mobile App to Increase Informed Decisions About Colorectal Cancer Screening Among African American and Caucasian Women: A Pilot Study.

At this time, there are no interactive mobile apps designed to increase informed decisions about colorectal cancer screening among women. Colorectal cancer is the third leading cause of cancer death among women. The study's purpose was to explore the usability, acceptability, and satisfaction with a mobile app designed to increase colorectal cancer screening informed decisions among 50- to 64-year-old women. Using previous research, an interactive mobile app to increase informed decisions about colorectal cancer screening was developed and pilot tested among African American and Caucasian women (N = 41). In total, 80.6% of women strongly agree/agreed that the mobile app made them think about colorectal cancer screening, 83.8% strongly agree/agreed that the mobile app provided enough information to make a decision about colorectal cancer screening, and 86.1% strongly agree/agreed that the mobile app could help them talk to their provider about colorectal cancer screening. Participants (63.2%) identified family/spouse as who they would talk to about their colorectal cancer screening decision. Participants found the mobile app easy to use and useful in making colorectal cancer screening decisions. Social support is important when making decisions about colorectal cancer screening. Healthcare professionals need new strategies, such as mobile apps, that engage patients, have the potential to increase patient-provider communication, and increase colorectal cancer screening adherence.