Description
with the given information please work on the “REVIEWED LITERATURE” part, slide 4&5 only. follow instructions on. slide 5 and look at comments made.
Unformatted Attachment Preview
Group 4: Guadalupe Martinez, Angelina Nieto-Rodriguez, Bernice Nunez, Diana Marcos
Conducting a literature review of your chosen health issue will aid in the theory-based design of your intervention. Your group assignment this week is
for each team member to review 2-3 articles on your chosen health issue (i.e.: groups of 3 will review 6-9 articles, groups of 4 will review 8-12 articles).
Use the below table template to summarize your literature review. Submit one document for the entire group.
Author(s), Study
Title, Year
Healthy Colon,
Healthy Life: A
Novel Colorectal
Cancer Screening
Intervention
(2010)
Study
Purpose
Study
Conceptual
Framework
Sample and
Setting
Study
Design
Interventions
Outcome
Variables
with
Measures
Findings
Major
Strengths
Major Limitations
Increase rates
of CRC
screening
among Latinos
and
Vietnamese
seen in
primary care
clinics with an
intervention
that includes
culturally
tailored
brochures with
or without
tailored
telephone
counseling
Authors are
expecting to
find that
tailored
educational
material
(brochure)
Will increase
the rates of
CRC
screening
among Latinos
and
Vietnamese
Latino and
Vietnamese
primary care
patients at a
large public
hospital.
A
Randomized
Control
Trial.
Culturally
tailored
telephone
counseling by
community
health advisors
employed by a
communitybased
organization,
culturally
tailored
brochures, and
customized
FOBT kits.
Selfreported
receipt of
FOBT or
any CRC
screening
at 1-year
follow-up.
Self-reported
FOBT
screening
rates
increased by
7.8 % in the
control
group, by
15.1 % in the
brochure
group, and
by 25.1 % in
the
brochure/tele
phone
counseling
group. For
any CRC
screening,
rates
increased by
4.1 % in the
usual care
group, by
11.9 % in the
FOBT/broch
ure group,
and by
The study
design was a
randomized
control trial
which is is
more reliable in
assesing cause
and effect than
other study
designs.
Study conducted in
a single geographic
setting and may not
be reproduced in
different settings.
The outcome of the
CRC screening was
by self report
which may cause
inaccurate
reporting.
21.4 % in the
brochure/tele
phone
counseling
group
Evaluating Two
Evidence-Based
Intervention
Strategies to
Promote CRC
Screening Among
Latino Adults in a
Primary Care
Setting
(2017)
Implementatio
n of evidencebased
interventions
to promote
fecal
immunochemi
cal test (FIT)
screening
Authors are
expecting that
implementatio
n of
intervention to
promote FIT
screening will
increase CRC
screening
among latinos.
They are also
assessing the
difference
between in
person and
remote
interventions.
Latinos aged
50–75 years
who were
not up-todate with
CRC
screening (n
= 200) at a
large
Federally
Qualified
Health
Center
(FQHC) in
San Diego,
CA
QuasiExperimenta
l (no control
group,
groups are
not
randomized)
Clinic visit
(in-reach)
intervention
including a
30-min
session with a
patient
navigator,
review of an
educational
“flip-chart,”
and a takehome FIT kit
with
instructions.
The
second pilot
was a systemlevel
(outreach)
intervention
consisting of
mailed
materials (i.e.,
FIT kit,
culturally and
linguistically
tailored
instructions,
and a pre-paid
return
envelope)
Proportion
of
individuals
who
completed
their FIT
test
within a 3month
follow-up
time period
assessed by
reviewing
the EMR
and
whether
participants
receive
guideline
appropriate
follow-up,
(e.g.,
results
reporting,
referral for
and
completion
of
diagnostic
colonoscop
y
after
abnormal
The
screening
rate for
participants
in the
inreach
intervention
was 76%.
The median
time from
the inreach
visit to
having the
results in the
EMR was 16
days
(range 9–32
days).
The
screening
rate in the
outreach
group was
19%. A
median of 46
days was
recorded
from the
time the
mailing was
sent and the
result was
reported
The subjective
are from
Latinos from
an FQHC. The
specific
audienc allows
for information
on how to
tailor material
to a specific
demographic.
The study design
did not include a
control group, there
fore we are not able
to assess wether the
intervention is
more effecive than
no intervention at
all.
FIT, and
specialist
referral if
cancer was
found)
in the EMR.
Colorectal cancer
incidence among
Hispanics and
non-Hispanic
Whites in the
United States
(2018)
The authors
noted a
decline in
CRC
incidence
overall,
however it
was not
occurring
equally across
all
races/ethniciti
es. They found
a discrepancy
among
Hispanic/Latin
os CRC
incidence and
the study
examines the
trend among
this group.
The
association
between
Latinos and
the higher
incidence of
CRC rates –
especially in
younger
adults.
Data from
national
registries.
Younger
Latinos were
identified as
ages 20-49
and older
Latinos were
50 and
above. NonHispanic
Whites were
also
considered.
More than
22 million
CRC cases
were
accessed for
the study.
Retrospectiv
e Cohort
Study –
utilized past
records the
National
Program of
Cancer
Registries
(NPCR) and
Surveillance,
Epidemiolog
y, and End
Results
(SEER)
program
during
2001–2014.
Utilizing
national
cancer registry
data to
evaluate the
trend of CRC
incidence
among young
Latinos.
Latinos are
less likely
to be
diagnosed
compared
to NonHispanic
Whites.
In 2018,
CRC
screening
prevalence
was lower
in Latinos
(49%) than
among
NHW
(58%).
Higher
incidence
among
younger
latinos
aged 2049.
Authors
found a
difference in
incidence
between
younger and
older
generation
Latinos.
They believe
it is due to
risk factors
like
immigration
and
acculturation
.
The analysis of
national data as
it contributes a
large
population to
study the trends
of incidence.
Does not dive into
interventions to
further understand
why there is a
higher incidence
for young age
early-onset CRC
among Latinos.
A randomized
controlled trial of
two interventions
to increase
colorectal cancer
Evaluate the
efficiency of
utilizing lay
health workerdelivered
Association of
education
materials
increasing the
screening
Utilized 26
neighborhoo
ds and
randomized
each to one
A
Randomized
Control
Trial.
There were
three study
conditions.
The first is no
intervention
All
differences
found were
not
statistically
There was
no
significant
difference in
screening
The major
strength was
the number of
participants.
There were 676
The major
limitation was that
participants in the
control group also
showed an increase
screening among
Hispanics on the
Texas-Mexico
border
A Promoter-Led
Pilot Study to
Increase
Colorectal Cancer
Screening in
Latinos: The
Juntos Contra El
Cáncer Program.
(2020).
interventions
on increasing
screening
among
Hispanics.
incidence
among
Hispanics.
of three
study
conditions.
To measure
the
effectiveness
of a
communitybased
intervention
program to
promote
colorectal
cancer
screening test
adherence,
improve
knowledge
and perceived
barriers to
screening
among Latino
adults aged 50
to 75 years
old.
Socialecological
framework.
177 Adult
Latino males
and females
aged 50 to
75 years old
at a federally
qualified
health center
(FQHC).
A pretestposttest
qualitative
research
design.
second is a
small media
print
intervention
and the third
was a lay
health workerdelivered
interactive
multimedia
intervention.
significant.
prevalence
in total, with
approximately
230 in each
condition.
in screening which
could be
determined by
reading the baseline
and post surveys
that consisted of
questions on CRC
basic knowledge
and screening
importance which
could have skewed
the data.
A culturallytailored
interactive
workshop and
telephonebased
appointment
scheduling
assistance for
a designated
health worker.
Selfreported
CRC
screening
test
adherence,
CRC
knowledge,
barriers to
CRC
screening,
and
feasibility
and
acceptabilit
y of
interventio
n.
A 66.7%
increase in
the number
of Latinos
who adhered
to CRC
screening
guidelines
due to the
use of
community
partners and
use of
promotores
The use of
patients from
the study
setting, use of
FQHC staff as
promotores,
and generation
of a model that
is suitability for
removing
barriers to CRC
screening
among
underserved
and
economicallydisadvantaged
patient.
The failure to use a
randomized control
group, resource
intense, and
inclusion of nonFQHC patients.
Barriers and
Facilitators of
Colonoscopy
Screening Among
Latino Men in a
Colorectal Cancer
Screening
Promotion
Program, (2023).
Promoting
Culturally
Appropriate
Colorectal Cancer
Screening through
a health educator
(2006)
To explore the
barriers and
facilitators to
participation
in
colonoscopy
screening
promotion
program for
Latino men.
None
45 Latino
men aged 50
to 75 years
who
participated
in cancer
educationplusnavigation
program at a
federally
qualified
health center
(FQHC).
A qualitative
research
using focus
group
discussions.
Patient
education,
navigation,
and free
colorectal
cancer
screening
tests.
Barriers to
colorectal
cancer
screening
and
facilitators
to
colorectal
screening.
Unscreened
patients need
more
information
on
colonoscopy
procedure
and bowel
preparation
while
screened
patients are
more
knowledgeab
le than them.
Fears or
concerns
about
colonoscopy
-related
stigma is a
barrier.
Study
identified
individual-level
adherence to
colorectal
screening
guidelines
among Latino
men and high
generalizability
of findings for
developing
targeted
interventions
for Latino men.
Small sample size,
use of purposive
sampling, use of
single-center study
design, and high
potential for
selection bias.
The purpose
of this study
was to assess
the effect of a
culturally
appropriate
intervention in
increasing
fecal occult
blood testing
(FOBT)
screenings
among
Chinese
Americans.
Authors are
expecting to
find that the
culturally
appropriate
program that
promotes fecal
occult blood
testing
(FOBT)
increases CRC
screenings
among
Chinese
Americans.
Out of 386
patients who
had a
scheduled
appointment
during a 14month trial
period, only
210
participants
were
enrolled in
the trial. Half
were
randomized
A
Randomized
Control
Trial.
The
intervention
being assessed
in this paper
was a clinicbased
education
promoting
FOBT
screening
programs that
was offered by
a trilingual
and bicultural
Chinese
The
participants
in the
interventio
n group
showed
increased
FOBT
screening
rates than
those in the
control
group.
This
culturally
appropriate
intervention
not only
increased
rates of
FOBT
screening
among this
study group,
they also
addressed
knowledge
and health
A major
strength of this
study was the
effect it has in
a group of lowincome and
lessacculturated
minority
patients which
can make this
intervention
adaptable to
other cultures
and vulnerable
A few major
limitations include
the small sample
size, the inclusion
of only participants
who were willing
to visit a separate
district clinic to
enroll in the study,
and it is possible
that some of the
patients received
screenings
elsewhere that may
not have been
into the
intervention
group and
the other half
randomized
into the
control
group. The
setting of
this study
was the
International
Community
Health
Services
(ICHS).
Using
intervention
Mapping to
Develop Health
Education
Components to
Increase
Colorectal Cancer
Screening in
Puerto Rico
(2017)
The purpose
of this study
was to
evaluate a
health
promotion
program
called
“Salud por la
Vida” in
efforts to
increase
colorectal
cancer
screening in
Puerto Rico.
Authors are
expecting to
find that
through the
use of
intervention
mapping (IM),
the health
promotion
program will
be successful
in increasing
the rates of
CRC
screenings.
Puerto Rican
adults who
were 50
years or
older and
patients of
Federally
Qualified
Health
Centers in
Puerto Rico.
Seven focus
groups with
a sample size
of 51.
American
health
educator.
Intervention
Mapping for
the planning
and
development
of health
promotion
interventions
.
Using
intervention
mapping to
design a health
promotion
program. The
creation of this
program has
various
phases,
including, a
needs
assessment for
the
community,
development
of program
objectives,
program
design,
creation of
educational
The health
education
materials
that were
created
from this
multicomp
onent t
interventio
n. were
well
received by
the
population
of interest
and will
likely
increase
CRC
screenings
among this
population.
education
access to the
inclusion of
a health
educator,
videos, and
pamphlets.
populations.
Another major
strength of this
study was its
research design
and the
outcome
assessment
through chart
audits by staff
who were
blinded to the
group
assignments.
reported in the
charts.
The use of
this
intervention
helped
identify
relevant
factors that
influence
CRC
screenings,
how to best
involve the
community
in the
decision
making
process, and
when to use
theory to
create
educational
materials. In
A major
strength of this
study is the use
of a planning
approach
framework
from beginning
to end to
determine the
effectiveness of
a health
education
program.
A major limitation
of the study is the
lack of
generalizability to
other populations
that can be
gathered from the
use of focus
groups. Those who
participated in
behavioral
journalism were of
higher
socioeconomic
status.
components,
and
implementatio
n and
evaluation.
addition, the
researchers
found that
the two most
effective
methods to
engage the
community
were
entertainmen
t education
and
behavioral
journalism.
Novel Intervention Program:
Colon Cancer Screening
By: Guadalupe Martinez, Diana Marcos,
Angelina Nieto-Rodriguez and Bernice Nuñez
The “So What”
Factor
The “so what” factor
Define the health issue you are
targeting.
Provide at least 5 statistics (with
citations) on the problem. This can
include economic impacts,
prevalence, incidence, trends, etc.
Include at least 2 charts/graphs of
the problem to help us understand it.
Reviewed Literature
Use your literature review to provide an
overview of prior interventions that
addressed your health issue. Explain what
worked and what didn’t work.
Identify what you drew from the literature
with regards to theory, study design, and
sample and setting. This should be an
overall synthesis of the literature, not a
table of individual studies.
Conceptual Model
and Predictors
Conceptual model and predictors
Summarize predictors from the literature and what theories
have been used in past interventions.
To what extent has previous research explored the impact of
theory on your chosen health issue?
Identify the conceptual model your intervention will use.
Justify why you chose that model.
Include a visual flowchart linking your health issue and
theoretical model. Include links between predictors and
outcomes for your health issue. You may include predictors
that you wouldn’t be able to intervene on, but you must
indicate which areas you will and will not intervene on.
Targeting
and
Tailoring
A.
Define your target population, including specific details such as age, race/ethnicity, cultural background, and gender.
a.
Include descriptors that go beyond typical descriptions that are seen in public health (e.g., social media use, where they live, economic
status, language use, etc.)
B.
Define the setting where you will deliver your intervention.
a.
Describe why that setting works to reach that target population. Do they go there? Live there? This can include online settings.
b.
List 2 pros and 2 cons of the setting.
C.
D.
Provide 1-2 strategies you will use to target your intervention.
Provide 2-3 strategies you will use to tailor your intervention. Include an example visual flowchart.
The Intervention:
Colon Cancer Screening
Counseling
A.
B.
C.
D.
E.
F.
List the overall goal of your intervention.
a. Increase colon cancer screening
Present a table that provides an overview of your proposed program.
a. How many sessions or activities?
i.
Two session couseling in clinc
b. How long is the intervention?
i.
15 minutes
List at least 3 intervention methods you will use. Explain why you chose those methods and provide the pros and cons of using
each method.
a. Educational material, counseling, media campaign
List the primary predictor(s) and primary outcome(s).
a. What “so what” important outcome(s) do you want to change or influence with your intervention? How will you assess
whether your intervention led to that change in outcome(s)?
b. How often will you measure your predictors and outcome(s)?
Using your visual flowchart as a guide, create a table that lists each predictor variable and how you will measure it.
Describe 2-3 ways in which you will maintain intervention fidelity during the study.
References
The experiment
Purchase answer to see full
attachment
