Adoption of an evidence-based colorectal cancer screening promotion program by community organizations serving Filipino Americans

BMC Public Health

Roshan Bastani¹  Catherine M Crespi¹  Reggie T Cayetano¹  Leda L Danao¹  Annette E Maxwell¹ 

[1] UCLA Kaiser Permanente Center for Health Equity, 650 Charles Young Dr. South A2-125 CHS, Box 956900, Los Angeles, CA 90095-6900, USA

关键词: Colorectal cancer screening;    Evidence-based intervention;    Adoption;    Churches;    Community organization;    Dissemination;    Health promotion;    Lay health educator;   

Others  :  1131964
DOI  :  10.1186/1471-2458-14-246

 received in 2013-10-24, accepted in 2014-03-05,  发布年份 2014

【 摘 要 】

Background

Filipino Americans have low rates of colorectal cancer (CRC) screening and high CRC mortality. To reduce this disparity, we conducted a dissemination trial in which we offered two levels of technical assistance to community organizations to disseminate an evidence-based CRC screening promotion program among their Filipino American members. This report describes the recruitment of organizations and adoption – the proportion and representativeness of organizations that decided to implement the program.

Methods

During the recruitment phase, we completed organizational assessments with 44 community-based organizations (previous partners in research, organizations that were referred to us, or new organizations) to assess their eligibility to participate (having ≥ 150 Filipino American members age 50+). We compared organizational characteristics of organizations that did and did not adopt our CRC screening promotion program.

Results

Twenty two of the 44 community organizations that completed the assessment adopted the CRC screening promotion program (50%). Adoption was highest among organizations that had previously partnered with us (11/14 = 79%) and among organizations that were referred to us by community partners (5/10 = 50%) and lowest among new organizations (6/20 = 30%). Few organizational differences were found between adopters and non-adopters.

Conclusions

The high rate of adoption among organizations that were referred by community partners or had partnered with us in the past underscores the importance of community resources, community-academic relationships, and partnership in the dissemination process. However, the moderate rate of adoption among new organizations and the demands of completing documentation and assessments in our trial to advance dissemination research raise questions regarding the generalizability of study findings.

【 授权许可】

   
2014 Maxwell et al.; licensee BioMed Central Ltd.

【 图 表 】

Figure 1.

Figure 2.

【 参考文献 】

• [1]Kandula NR, Wen M, Jacobs EA, Lauderdale DS: Low rates of colorectal, cervical, and breast cancer screening in Asian Americans compared with non-Hispanic whites: cultural influences or access to care? Cancer 2006, 107(1):184-192.
• [2]Lin SS, Clarke CA, Prehn AW, Glaser SL, West DW, O'Malley CD: Survival differences among Asian subpopulations in the United States after prostate, colorectal, breast, and cervical carcinomas. Cancer 2002, 94(4):1175-1182.
• [3]Maxwell AE, Crespi CM: Trends in colorectal cancer screening utilization among ethnic groups in California: are we closing the gap? Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 2009, 18(3):752-759.
• [4]Krist AH, Shenson D, Woolf SH, Bradley C, Liaw WR, Rothemich SF, Slonim A, Benson W, Anderson LA: Clinical and community delivery systems for preventive care: an integration framework. Am J Prev Med 2013, 45(4):508-516.
• [5]Maxwell AE, Bastani R, Danao LL, Antonio C, Garcia GM, Crespi CM: Results of a community-based randomized trial to increase colorectal cancer screening among Filipino Americans. Am J Public Health 2010, 100(11):2228-2234.
• [6]Maxwell AE, Danao LL, Bastani R: Dissemination of colorectal cancer screening by Filipino American community health advisors: a feasibility study. Health Promot Pract 2013, 14(4):498-505.
• [7]Rogers EM: Diffusion of Innovations. 5th edition. New York: The Free Press; 2003.
• [8]Glasgow RE, Vogt TM, Boles SM: Evaluating the public health impact of health promotion interventions: the RE-AIM framework. Am J Public Health 1999, 89(9):1322-1327.
• [9]Proctor E, Silmere H, Raghavan R, Hovmand P, Aarons G, Bunger A, Griffey R, Hensley M: Outcomes for implementation research: conceptual distinctions, measurement challenges, and research agenda. Adm Policy Ment Health 2011, 38(2):65-76.
• [10]Frambach RT, Schillewaert N: Organizational innovation adoption: A multi-level framework of determinants and opportunities for future research. J Bus Res 2002, 55:163-176.
• [11]Wisdom JP, Chor KH, Hoagwood KE, Horwitz SM: Innovation Adoption: A Review of Theories and Constructs. Adm Policy Ment Health 2013. April 3 [Epub ahead of print]
• [12]Campbell MK, James A, Hudson MA, Carr C, Jackson E, Oakes V, Demissie S, Farrell D, Tessaro I: Improving multiple behaviors for colorectal cancer prevention among African American church members. Health Psychol 2004, 23(5):492-502.
• [13]Christensen CL, Bowen DJ, Hart A Jr, Kuniyuki A, Saleeba AE, Campbell MK: Recruitment of religious organisations into a community-based health promotion programme. Health Soc Care Community 2005, 13(4):313-322.
• [14]Hippolyte JM, Phillips-Caesar EG, Winston GJ, Charlson ME, Peterson JC: Recruitment and retention techniques for developing faith-based research partnerships, New York city, 2009–2012. Prev Chronic Dis 2013, 10:120142. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.5888/pcd10.120142 webcite
• [15]Wallerstein N, Duran B: Community-based participatory research contributions to intervention research: the intersection of science and practice to improve health equity. Am J Public Health 2010, 100(Suppl 1):S40-S46.
• [16]Green LW, Nasser M: Furthering Dissemination and Implementation Research: The Need for More Attention to External Validity. In Dissemination and Implementation Research in Health. Edited by Brownson RC, Colditz GA, Proctor EK. New York: Oxford University Press; 2012:p. 305-p. 326.