Cluster randomized trial showed increased CRC screening in adults, suggesting educational efforts may improve outcomes.
Background/Objectives: Colorectal cancer (CRC) is the leading cancer-related death in Puerto Rico (PR). Yet CRC screening (CRCS) rates remain low. We developed ¡Salud!, por la Vida, an educational intervention aiming to increase CRCS among age-eligible adults living in PR. Methods: We conducted a cluster randomized controlled trial among adults 50–75 years old at Federally Qualified Health Clinics in PR. Participants could not have a history of CRC nor be currently adherent to CRCS guidelines for a fecal occult blood test (FOBT) or fecal immunochemical test (FIT) (within last year) or colonoscopy (within last 5–10 years). Out of 445 randomized participants, 355 completed the study procedures (Control: 277; Intervention: 78) and were included in the main analysis. Participants in the intervention arm completed baseline and follow-up questionnaires alongside the educational intervention (at baseline) and two reminder calls (before follow-up) within a four-month period. Control arm participants only completed baseline and follow-up questionnaires within the same period. All participants were followed up to assess CRCS completion. Results: Post-trial screening rates were significantly higher in the intervention group: FOBT/FIT (55% vs. 39%, p = 0.02), colonoscopy (10% vs. 3%, p = 0.02), and any CRCS (60% vs. 41%, p < 0.01). Compared to controls, those in the intervention group showed a 48% higher probability of undergoing any CRCS (RR = 1.48, 95%CI: 1.17, 1.86), were 1.4 times more likely to complete a FOBT/FIT (RR = 1.40, 95%CI: 1.09, 1.80), and were over 3 times more likely to undergo a colonoscopy (RR = 3.16, 95%CI: 1.26, 7.91). Conclusions: The findings underscore the efficacy of the intervention in increasing CRCS uptake, potentially preventing late-stage detection and reducing CRC mortality in PR.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Llavona-Ortiz et al. (2025) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: