Processes of Change for Colonoscopy: Limited Support for Use Among Navigated Latinos
This study assessed the role of the processes of change (POC), a construct of the transtheoretical model, in colorectal cancer (CRC) screening among Latinos. Latinos participate in CRC screening less often and are diagnosed with CRC at a later stage than whites. POC items were administered to 344 English- and Spanish-speaking Latinos at average risk for CRC who had not had a colonoscopy in the past 5 years and received a colonoscopy referral. POC were measured at three timepoints: following informed consent (T1) at time of referral, 2 weeks prior to scheduled colonoscopy (T2), and 1 month after scheduled colonoscopy (T3). Participants received patient navigation as part of a randomized controlled trial to promote screening colonoscopy. POC scores were examined for changes during the course of the intervention, and logistic regression models assessed the relationship between POC scores and CRC screening adherence. Total POC scores decreased between T1 and T2 (p = 0.03) but were unchanged between T1 and T3. CRC screening adherence was not significantly associated with POC scores or change in POC scores over time. The POC instrument was not found useful for predicting colonoscopy adherence among Latinos in conjunction with patient navigation. Total POC scores did not increase during a patient navigation intervention despite high colonoscopy completion rates.
KeywordsColorectal cancer Processes of change Transtheoretical model Colonoscopy Latinos
This study was funded by National Cancer Institute R01 CA140737 (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier NCT01569620) and National Institutes of Health Cancer Center Support Grant P30 CA008748.
Compliance with Ethical Standards
Conflict of Interest
The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.
All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.
Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.
- 1.American Cancer Society. Cancer Facts & Figures 2018. Atlanta: American Cancer Society; 2018. Available from: https://www.cancer.org/content/dam/cancer-org/research/cancer-facts-and-statistics/annual-cancer-facts-and-figures/2018/cancer-facts-and-figures-2018.pdf
- 2.American Cancer Society. Colorectal Cancer Facts & Figures 2017-2019. Atlanta: American Cancer Society; 2017. Available from: https://www.cancer.org/content/dam/cancer-org/research/cancer-facts-and-statistics/colorectal-cancer-facts-and-figures/colorectal-cancer-facts-and-figures-2017-2019.pdf
- 3.American Cancer Society. Cancer Facts & Figures for Hispanics/Latinos 2015-2017. American Cancer Society; 2015. Available from: https://www.cancer.org/content/dam/cancer-org/research/cancer-facts-and-statistics/cancer-facts-and-figures-for-hispanics-and-latinos/cancer-facts-and-figures-for-hispanics-and-latinos-2015-2017.pdf
- 5.Levin B, Lieberman DA, McFarland B, Andrews KS, Brooks D, Bond J, et al. Screening and surveillance for the early detection of colorectal cancer and adenomatous polyps, 2008: a joint guideline from the American Cancer Society, the US Multi-Society Task Force on Colorectal Cancer, and the American College of Radiology. Gastroenterology. 2008;134:1570–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 18.Krok-Schoen JL, Oliveri JM, Young GS, Katz ML, Tatum CM, Paskett ED. Evaluating the stage of change model to a cervical cancer screening intervention among Ohio Appalachian women. Women Health 2015 1–19.Google Scholar
- 32.Cohen J. Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences. 2nd ed. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum; 1988.Google Scholar
- 44.Reuland DS, Brenner AT, Hoffman R, McWilliams A, Rhyne RL, Getrich C, et al. Effect of combined patient decision aid and patient navigation vs usual care for colorectal cancer screening in a vulnerable patient population: a randomized clinical trial. JAMA Intern Med. 2017;177:967–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar