Top

Published in:

01-09-2014 | Original Article

An investigation of the colorectal cancer experience and receptivity to family-based cancer prevention programs

Authors: Carmen Radecki Breitkopf, Gladys B. Asiedu, Jason Egginton, Pamela Sinicrope, Seung M. L. Opyrchal, Lisa A. Howell, Christi Patten, Lisa Boardman

Published in: Supportive Care in Cancer | Issue 9/2014

Abstract

Purpose

Cancer is a shared family experience and may provide a “teachable moment” to motivate at-risk family members to adopt cancer prevention and health promotion behaviors. This study explored how a diagnosis of colorectal cancer (CRC) is experienced by family members and may be used to develop a family-based CRC prevention program. Preferences regarding content, timing, and modes of program delivery were examined. Social cognitive theory provided the conceptual framework for the study.

Methods

This study employed mixed methodology (semi-structured interviews and self-report questionnaires). Participants included 73 adults (21 patients, 52 family members) from 23 families (two patients were deceased prior to being interviewed). Most patients (n = 14; 67 %) were interviewed 1–5 years post-diagnosis. Individual interviews were audio-recorded, transcribed, and content analyzed.

Results

For many, a CRC diagnosis was described as a shared family experience. Family members supported each other’s efforts to prevent CRC through screening, exercising, and maintaining a healthy diet. Teachable moments for introducing a family-based program included the time of the patient’s initial cancer surgery and post-chemotherapy. Reported willingness to participate in a family-based program was associated with risk perception, self-efficacy, outcome expectancies, and the social/community context in which the program would be embedded. Program preferences included cancer screening, diet/nutrition, weight management, stress reduction, and exercise. Challenges included geographic dispersion, variation in education levels, generational differences, and scheduling.

Conclusions

CRC patients and family members are receptive to family-based programs. Feasibility concerns, which may be mitigated but not eliminated with technological advances, must be addressed for successful family-based programs.

American Cancer Society (2011) Cancer facts & figures 2011. Atlanta: American Cancer Society http://nccrt.org/cancer-facts-figures-2011/. Accessed 14 January 2013

Winawer SJ, Zauber AG, Fletcher RH et al (2006) Guidelines for colonoscopy surveillance after polypectomy: a consensus update by the US Multi-Society Task Force on Colorectal Cancer and the American Cancer Society. Gastroenterology 130:1872–1885. doi:10.1053/j.gastro.2006.03.012 PubMedCrossRef

Burt RW (1997) Screening of patients with a positive family history of colorectal cancer. Gastrointest Endosc Clin N Am 7:65–79PubMed

Duncan JL, Kyle J (1982) Family incidence of carcinoma of the colon and rectum in north-east Scotland. Gut 23:169–171. doi:10.1136/gut.23.2.169 PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRef

Kune GA, Kune S, Watson LF (1987) The Melbourne Colorectal Cancer Study. Characterization of patients with a family history of colorectal cancer. Dis Colon Rectum 30:600–606. doi:10.1007/BF02554806 PubMedCrossRef

Ponz de Leon M, Antonioli A, Ascari A, Zanghieri G, Sacchetti C (1987) Incidence and familial occurrence of colorectal cancer and polyps in a health-care district of northern Italy. Cancer 60:2848–2859. doi:10.1002/1097-0142(19871201)60:11<2848::AID-CNCR2820601141>3.0.CO;2-F PubMedCrossRef

Fuchs CS, Giovannucci EL, Colditz GA, Hunter DJ, Speizer FE, Willett WC (1994) A prospective study of family history and the risk of colorectal cancer. N Engl J Med 331:1669–1674. doi:10.1056/NEJM199412223312501 PubMedCrossRef

Lin OS, Gluck M, Nguyen M, Koch J, Kozarek RA (2013) Screening patterns in patients with a family history of colorectal cancer often do not adhere to national guidelines. Dig Dis Sci 58:1841–1848. doi:10.1007/s10620-013-2567-3 PubMedCrossRef

Brooks DD, Winawer SJ, Rex DK et al (2008) Colonoscopy surveillance after polypectomy and colorectal cancer resection. Am Fam Physician 77:995–1002PubMed

10.

Gatof D, Ahnen D (2002) Primary prevention of colorectal cancer: diet and drugs. Gastroenterol Clin N Am 31:587–623. doi:10.1016/S0889-8553(02)00011-0, xiCrossRef

11.

Le Marchand L, Wilkens LR, Hankin JH, Kolonel LN, Lyu LC (1999) Independent and joint effects of family history and lifestyle on colorectal cancer risk: implications for prevention. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 8:45–51PubMed

12.

Le Marchand L, Wilkens LR, Kolonel LN, Hankin JH, Lyu LC (1997) Associations of sedentary lifestyle, obesity, smoking, alcohol use, and diabetes with the risk of colorectal cancer. Cancer Res 57:4787–4794PubMed

13.

Lewis FM (2006) The effects of cancer survivorship on families and caregivers. More research is needed on long-term survivors. Am J Nurs 106:20–25. doi:10.1097/00000446-200603003-00008 PubMedCrossRef

14.

Turner D, Adams E, Boulton M et al (2013) Partners and close family members of long-term cancer survivors: health status, psychosocial well-being and unmet supportive care needs. Psycho-Oncology 22:12–19. doi:10.1002/pon.2050 PubMedCrossRef

15.

Kristeller JL, Hebert J, Edmiston K et al (1996) Attitudes toward risk factor behavior of relatives of cancer patients. Prev Med 25:162–169. doi:10.1006/pmed.1996.0042 PubMedCrossRef

16.

McBride CM, Ostroff JS (2003) Teachable moments for promoting smoking cessation: the context of cancer care and survivorship. Cancer Control 10:325–333PubMed

17.

Gerlach RW, Gambosi JR, Bowen RH (1990) Cancer survivors’ needs reported by survivors and their families. J Cancer Educ 5:63–70. doi:10.1080/08858199009528037 PubMedCrossRef

18.

U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Office of Disease Prevention and Health Promotion. Healthy People 2020. Washington, D.C. http://www.healthypeople.gov/2020/topicsobjectives2020/objectiveslist.aspx?topicId=5. Accessed 14 January 2013

19.

Bowen DJ, Patenaude AF, Vernon SW (1999) Psychosocial issues in cancer genetics: from the laboratory to the public. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 8:326–328PubMed

20.

Bandura A (1997) Self-efficacy: the exercise of control. W. H. Freeman, New York

21.

Bartholomew LK, Parcel GS, Swank PR, Czyzewski DI (1993) Measuring self-efficacy expectations for the self-management of cystic fibrosis. Chest 103:1524–1530. doi:10.1378/chest.103.5.1524 PubMedCrossRef

22.

Clasen CM, Vernon SW, Mullen PD, Jackson GL (1994) A survey of physician beliefs and self-reported practices concerning screening for early detection of cancer. Soc Sci Med 39:841–849. doi:10.1016/0277-9536(94)90046-9 PubMedCrossRef

23.

Goodson P (2002) Predictors of intention to promote family planning: a survey of protestant seminarians in the United States. Health Educ Behav 29:521–541. doi:10.1177/109019802237022 PubMedCrossRef

24.

Graves KD (2003) Social cognitive theory and cancer patients’ quality of life: a meta-analysis of psychosocial intervention components. Health Psychol 22:210–219. doi:10.1037//0278-6133.22.2.210 PubMedCrossRef

25.

Ievers-Landis CE, Burant C, Drotar D, Morgan L, Trapl ES, Kwoh CK (2003) Social support, knowledge, and self-efficacy as correlates of osteoporosis preventive behaviors among preadolescent females. J Pediatr Psychol 28:335–345. doi:10.1093/jpepsy/jsg023 PubMedCrossRef

26.

Jemmott JB III, Jemmott LW, Spears H, Hewitt N, Cruz-Collins M (1992) Self-efficacy, hedonistic expectancies, and condom-use intentions among inner-city black adolescent women: a social cognitive approach to AIDS risk behavior. J Adolesc Health 13:512–519. doi:10.1016/1054-139X(92)90016-5 PubMedCrossRef

27.

Krummel DA, Humphries D, Tessaro I (2002) Focus groups on cardiovascular health in rural women: implications for practice. J Nutr Educ Behav 34:38–46. doi:10.1016/S1499-4046(06)60223-6 PubMedCrossRef

28.

Lee S, Reicks M (2003) Environmental and behavioral factors are associated with the calcium intake of low-income adolescent girls. J Am Diet Assoc 103:1526–1529. doi:10.1016/j.jada.2003.08.020 PubMedCrossRef

29.

Ransdell LB, Taylor A, Oakland D, Schmidt J, Moyer-Mileur L, Shultz B (2003) Daughters and mothers exercising together: effects of home- and community-based programs. Med Sci Sports Exerc 35:286–296. doi:10.1249/01.MSS.0000048836.67270.1F PubMedCrossRef

30.

Stahl T, Rutten A, Nutbeam D et al (2001) The importance of the social environment for physically active lifestyle—results from an international study. Soc Sci Med 52:1–10. doi:10.1016/S0277-9536(00)00116-7 PubMedCrossRef

31.

Story M, Neumark-Sztainer D, French S (2002) Individual and environmental influences on adolescent eating behaviors. J Am Diet Assoc 102:S40–S51. doi:10.1016/S0002-8223(02)90421-9 PubMedCrossRef

32.

Vakalahi HF (2001) Adolescent substance use and family-based risk and protective factors: a literature review. J Drug Educ 31:29–46. doi:10.2190/QP75-P9AR-NUVJ-FJCB PubMedCrossRef

33.

McBride CM, Emmons KM, Lipkus IM (2003) Understanding the potential of teachable moments: the case of smoking cessation. Health Educ Res 18:156–170. doi:10.1093/her/18.2.156 PubMedCrossRef

34.

McBride CM, Pollak KI, Garst J et al (2003) Distress and motivation for smoking cessation among lung cancer patients’ relatives who smoke. J Cancer Educ 18:150–156. doi:10.1207/S15430154JCE1803_08 PubMedCrossRef

35.

McBride CM, Puleo E, Pollak KI, Clipp EC, Woolford S, Emmons KM (2008) Understanding the role of cancer worry in creating a “teachable moment” for multiple risk factor reduction. Soc Sci Med 66:790–800. doi:10.1016/j.socscimed.2007.10.014 PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRef

36.

Fife BL (2005) The role of constructed meaning in adaptation to the onset of life-threatening illness. Soc Sci Med 61:2132–2143. doi:10.1016/j.socscimed.2005.04.026 PubMedCrossRef

37.

Lennon OC, Doody C, Choisdealbh CN, Blake C (2013) Barriers to healthy-lifestyle participation in stroke: consumer participation in secondary prevention design. Int J Rehabil Res 36:354–361. doi:10.1097/Mrr.0b013e3283643d48 PubMedCrossRef

38.

Satia JA, Walsh JF, Pruthi RS (2009) Health behavior changes in White and African American prostate cancer survivors. Cancer Nurs 32:107–117PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRef

39.

Vandelanotte C, Duncan MJ, Plotnikoff RC, Mummery WK (2012) Do participants’ preferences for mode of delivery (text, video, or both) influence the effectiveness of a web-based physical activity intervention? J Med Internet Res 14:e37. doi:10.2196/jmir.1998 PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRef

40.

Bastian LA, Fish LJ, Peterson BL et al (2013) Assessment of the impact of adjunctive proactive telephone counseling to promote smoking cessation among lung cancer patients’ social networks. Am J Health Promot 27:181–190PubMedCrossRef

41.

Lana A, del Valle MO, Lopez S, Faya-Ornia G, & Lopez ML (2013) Study protocol of a randomized controlled trial to improve cancer prevention behaviors in adolescents and adults using a web-based intervention supplemented with SMS. BMC Public Health 13. doi:10.1186/1471-2458-13-357

42.

Beauchamp M, Francella S, Romano J, Goldstein R, Brooks D (2013) A novel approach to long-term respiratory care: results of a community based post-rehabilitation maintenance program. Respir Med 107:1210–1216PubMedCrossRef

43.

Wilson LC (2000) Implementation and evaluation of church-based health fairs. J Community Health Nurs 17:39–48PubMedCrossRef

44.

Hawkins NA, McCarty F, Peipins LA, Rodriguez JL (2012) Measuring the degree of closeness to the cancer experience: development and initial validation of the CONNection to the Experience of Cancer Scale (CONNECS). Patient Educ Couns 89:292–299. doi:10.1016/j.pec.2012.08.009 PubMedCrossRef

Title: An investigation of the colorectal cancer experience and receptivity to family-based cancer prevention programs
Authors: Carmen Radecki Breitkopf
Gladys B. Asiedu
Jason Egginton
Pamela Sinicrope
Seung M. L. Opyrchal
Lisa A. Howell
Christi Patten
Lisa Boardman
Publication date: 01-09-2014
Publisher: Springer Berlin Heidelberg
Published in: Supportive Care in Cancer / Issue 9/2014
Print ISSN: 0941-4355
Electronic ISSN: 1433-7339
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00520-014-2245-9

Webinar | 19-02-2024 | 17:30 (CET)

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on antibody–drug conjugates in cancer

Watch now

Antibody–drug conjugates (ADCs) are novel agents that have shown promise across multiple tumor types. Explore the current landscape of ADCs in breast and lung cancer with our experts, and gain insights into the mechanism of action, key clinical trials data, existing challenges, and future directions.

Dr. Véronique Diéras

Prof. Fabrice Barlesi

Developed by: Springer Medicine

At a glance: The STEP trials

Springer Medicine

Abstract

Purpose

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Please log in to get access to this content

Other articles of this Issue 9/2014

Living with cancer-related uncertainty: associations with fatigue, insomnia, and affect in younger breast cancer survivors

Making quality of life assessment a dashboard for patient management

Neuromuscular complications after hematopoietic stem cell transplantation

Health media use among childhood and young adult cancer survivors who smoke

What about Alice? Peripheral neuropathy from taxane-containing treatment for advanced nonsmall cell lung cancer

Caregivers as healthcare managers: health management activities, needs, and caregiving relationships for colorectal cancer survivors with ostomies

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on antibody–drug conjugates in cancer