Blog
About

  • Record: found
  • Abstract: found
  • Article: found
Is Open Access

Effectiveness Evaluation of Mobilization Model of Colorectal Cancer Screening in Rural Area on the Basis of Community-based Participatory Research Method

Read this article at

ScienceOpenPublisher
Bookmark
      There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

      Abstract

      Objective: To evaluate the effectiveness of mobilization model of colorectal cancer screening in rural area on the basis of community-based participatory research (CBPR) method.

      Methods: From March to August in 2014, two villages (Wuhou Village and Gushankou Village) were selected from 27 administrative villages in Hancunhe Town of Beijing as sampling sites for community intervention by purposive sampling method. The two villages were randomly assigned to intervention group (Wuhou Village) and control group (Gushankou Village) by simple random sampling method. There were respectively 911 and 936 villagers met the screening requirements in the Wuhou Village and Gushankou Village. The high-risk factors questionnaire and fecal occult blood test (FOBT) (two times) were used to perform the preliminary screening among these targeted populations, and colonoscopy was given to high-risk populations. Intervention group adopted the model of mobilization based-on CBPR method while control group used the routine mobilization method for intervention. In March 2014, 745 villagers who met the inclusion criteria were selected from Wuhou Village and Gushankou Village as research objects, and the self-made questionnaire was used to conduct baseline survey before intervention. In August 2014, 740 villagers of Wuhou Village and Gushankou Village who met the inclusion criteria were selected as the research object, and the final-stage investigation was conducted after self-made questionnaire intervention. The general information, the awareness rate of information, acquiring rate of poster foldout, interest rate of propaganda poster, score of knowledge and score of attitude of colorectal cancer screening, participation rate of preliminary screening and participation rate of electron endoscopy were recorded.

      Results: A total of 745 questionnaires (363 in control group and 382 in intervention group) were sent out in the baseline survey, and 707 (343 in control group and 364 in intervention group) were valid with an effective response rate of 94.9%. A total of 740 questionnaires (359 in control group and 381 in intervention group) were sent out in the final-stage survey, and 696 (330 in control group and 366 in intervention group) were valid with an effective response rate of 94.1%. The awareness rate of information, acquiring rate of poster foldout and interest rate of propaganda poster of colorectal cancer screening in intervention group were higher than those in control group (P<0.05). The score of knowledge and score of attitude of colorectal cancer screening after intervention in the control group and intervention group were higher than those before intervention (P<0.05). The scores of knowledge of colorectal cancer screening before and after intervention in intervention group were higher than those in control group (P<0.05). There was no significant difference in the scores of attitude of colorectal cancer screening before intervention between intervention group and control group (P>0 05); the score of attitude of colorectal cancer screening after intervention in intervention group was higher than that in control group (P<0.05). The results of difference-in-differences model of independent pooled cross-sectional data showed that there was no significant difference in score of knowledge of colorectal cancer screening before and after intervention between the two groups (P>0.05); the difference value of score of attitude of colorectal cancer screening before and after intervention in intervention group was greater than that in control group (P>0.05). The binary non-conditional Logistic regression analysis showed that the participation rate of preliminary screening in intervention group was 23.8% higher than that in control group (P<0.05); there was no significant difference between intervention group and control group in participation rate of colonoscopy (P>0.05).

      Conclusion: The mobilization model of colorectal cancer screening in rural area on the basis of CBPR has greatly improved the awareness of screening information of colorectal cancer screening and participative behaviors of preliminary screening of the villagers, however, due to the low educational level of the villagers, their knowledge and attitude of colorectal cancer screening are less affected.

      Related collections

      Author and article information

      Affiliations
      1School of Health Management and Education, Capital Medical University, Beijing 100069, China
      2Department of Endoscopy, Cancer Hospital Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences, Beijing 100021, China
      3Community Health Service Centers of Hancunhe Town, Beijing 102423, China
      Author notes
      Corresponding author: WANG Ya-dong, Professor; E-mail: yadong61@123456ccmu.edu.cn
      Journal
      CGP
      Chinese General Practice
      Compuscript (Ireland)
      1007-9572
      20 February 2017
      20 February 2017
      : 20
      : 6
      j.issn.1007-9572.2017.06.004
      10.3969/j.issn.1007-9572.2017.06.004
      © 2017 Chinese General Practice

      This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 Unported License (CC BY-NC 4.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited. See https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/.

      Product
      Self URI (journal page): http://fmch.chinagp.net/
      Categories
      Abstract
      ScienceOpen disciplines:
      Keywords:

      Comments

      Comment on this article