A Motivational Interviewing Intervention to Promote CRC Screening: A Pilot Study.
Adebola Adegboyega, Mollie Aleshire, Amanda T Wiggins and 2 others
PMID 33252406WHAT IT FOUND
A brief motivational interviewing session did not increase colorectal cancer screening compared with brochures in adults 50 years or older in a rural emergency department.
Only 12% versus 15% of those followed were screened, and 61.6% were lost to follow-up.
Key findings
01Among 73 participants with follow-up data, colorectal cancer screening completion did not differ between motivational interviewing and brochure control (12% versus 15%; chi-square 0.13, P = .72).
02The intervention group reported about 1 point higher perceived susceptibility to colorectal cancer than the control group, adjusted for demographics, on a reported 4- to 20-point subscale (est. b = 0.68, P = .038).
03Older participants and those reporting financial inadequacy had more barriers to colorectal cancer screening (est. b = 0.09, P = .014; est. b = 2.34, P = .002).
STILL TO COME
How it was doneWhat they foundWhat it means for RNs
Read the rest of this summary
You get three full summaries a month, free, and we do not ask for a card. Search, the TL;DRs and your library stay unlimited either way.
What it does not show
Only 73 of 190 randomized participants had follow-up data, and 117 (61.6%) were lost to follow-up. Women and people who were accompanying someone or at the emergency department for a reason other than seeking care themselves were more likely to remain, so the analysed group differed from those lost. The study was conducted in one rural Appalachian emergency department, so it may not apply to other settings or populations. The study was described as a pilot randomized control trial. Screening completion was collected by telephone self-report at 3 and 6 months.
Declared interests
The authors declared no conflicts of interest; no funding source is reported.
The easy way to misread this
Do not conclude that motivational interviewing increases colorectal cancer screening. The primary outcome was null: 12% of the intervention group and 15% of the control group were screened, and 61.6% of randomized participants were lost to follow-up.