Partnering to Increase Colorectal Cancer Screening: Perspectives of Community Advisory Board Members.
Susan M Rawl, Sandra Bailey, Beatrice Cork and 12 others
PMID 33586632WHAT IT FOUND
Community members who helped design colorectal cancer screening research found the advisory board useful and felt heard.
They valued learning and contributing, but wanted transportation help, safer venues, remote options, and a nurse contact for questions.
Key findings
01Members said the advisory board meetings were useful, well organized, and effective, and most felt their opinions were listened to and considered.
02Members identified the time commitment, meeting location safety, and transportation as challenges, and asked for transportation support, a different meeting location, and remote meeting access.
03When giving input on the patient navigation intervention, members said it was important to have a nurse available to talk and answer questions alongside the mailed DVD.
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
The board originally had eight members, and one declined the evaluation. The evaluation was done in the third year of the project, leaving little time to fix problems before the study ended. The paper reports board members' experiences and suggestions, not patient colorectal cancer screening outcomes. Three members had been involved in prior studies conducted by the principal investigator.
Declared interests
The authors received funding from PCORI in 2016; the article is listed as NIH extramural research support.
The easy way to misread this
Do not read the nurse contact comment as proof that nurse contact in patient navigation increases colorectal cancer screening. The paper reports community advisory board members' experiences and suggestions, not patient screening results.