Receipt, uptake, and satisfaction with tailored DVD and patient navigation interventions to promote cancer screening among rural women.
Susan M Rawl, Ryan Baltic, Patrick O Monahan, Timothy E Stump, Madison Hyer, Alysha C Ennis, Jean Walunis, Katherine Renick, Karen Hinshaw, Electra D Paskett, Victoria L Champion, Mira L Katz
Author Information
Susan M Rawl: Simon Comprehensive Cancer Center, School of Nursing, Indiana University, Indianapolis, IN, USA. ORCID
Ryan Baltic: Comprehensive Cancer Center, The Ohio State University, Columbus, OH, USA.
Patrick O Monahan: Department of Biostatistics and Health Data Science, School of Medicine, Indiana University, Simon Comprehensive Cancer Center, Indianapolis, IN, USA.
Timothy E Stump: Department of Biostatistics and Health Data Science, School of Medicine, Indiana University, Indianapolis, IN, USA.
Madison Hyer: Center for Biostatistics, College of Medicine, The Ohio State University, Columbus, OH, USA.
Alysha C Ennis: College of Public Health, The Ohio State University, Columbus, OH, USA.
Jean Walunis: Comprehensive Cancer Center, The Ohio State University, Columbus, OH, USA.
Katherine Renick: The Ohio State University, Columbus, OH, USA.
Karen Hinshaw: Indiana University School of Medicine, Indianapolis, IN, USA.
Electra D Paskett: College of Medicine, Comprehensive Cancer Center, The Ohio State University, Columbus, OH, USA.
Victoria L Champion: School of Nursing, Indiana University, Simon Comprehensive Cancer Center, Indianapolis, IN, USA.
Mira L Katz: College of Public Health, Comprehensive Cancer Center, The Ohio State University, Columbus, OH, USA.
Process evaluation is essential to understanding and interpreting the results of randomized trials testing the effects of behavioral interventions. A process evaluation was conducted as part of a comparative effectiveness trial testing a mailed, tailored interactive digital video disc (DVD) with and without telephone-based patient navigation (PN) to promote breast, cervical and colorectal cancer screening among rural women who were not up-to-date (UTD) for at least one screening test. Data on receipt, uptake, and satisfaction with the interventions were collected via telephone interviews from 542 participants who received the tailored interactive DVD (n = 266) or the DVD plus telephone-based PN (n = 276). All participants reported receiving the DVD and 93.0% viewed it. The most viewed sections of the DVD were about colorectal, followed by breast, then cervical cancer screening. Most participants agreed the DVD was easy to understand, helpful, provided trustworthy information, and gave information needed to make a decision about screening. Most women in the DVD+PN group, 98.2% (n = 268), reported talking with the navigator. The most frequently discussed cancer screenings were colorectal (86.8%) and breast (71.3%); 57.5% discussed cervical cancer screening. The average combined length of PN encounters was 22.2 minutes with 21.7 additional minutes spent on coordinating activities. Barriers were similar across screening tests with the common ones related to the provider/health care system, lack of knowledge, forgetfulness/too much bother, and personal issues. This evaluation provided information about the implementation and delivery of behavioral interventions as well as challenges encountered that may impact trial results.
