Poster Presentation COSA-IPOS Joint Scientific Meeting 2012

Finding a needle in a haystack: Population-based approaches to recruiting relatives of CRC patients into a behavioral intervention trial (#605)

Anita Y Kinney 1 , Rebecca G Simmons 1 , Yuan-Chin Amy Lee 1 , Antoinette Stroup 2 , Amy Rogers 1 , Sandie Edwards 1 , Jan Lowery 3 , Charles Wiggins 4 , Dierdre Hill 4 , Christopher Johnson 5 , Rosemary Cress 6 , Marc S Williams 7 , Kory W Jasperson 1 , Marc Schwartz 8 , Randall Burt 1 , Scott Walters 9
  1. University of Utah, Huntsman Cancer Institute, Salt Lake City, UT, United States
  2. Internal Medicine, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, UT, USA
  3. Prevention and Control, University of Colorado Cancer Center, Aurora, CO, USA
  4. University of New Mexico, Albuquerque, NM, USA
  5. Epidemiology, Idaho Hospital Association, Boise, ID, USA
  6. California Cancer Registry, Sacramento, CA, USA
  7. Genomic Medicine Institute, Weis Center for Research, Danville, PA, USA
  8. Lombardi Comprehensive Cancer Center, Georgetown University, Washington, DC, USA
  9. School of Public Health, University of North Texas Southwestern, Ft. Worth, TX, USA

Aims: Accessing relatives of cancer patients through population-based cancer registries has potential advantages for increasing the reach of behavioral interventions to educate family members about their risk and motivate screening adherence. We examined factors associated with case (proband) and relative recruitment to a multi-site behavioral intervention trial targeting individuals at increased familial risk for colorectal cancer (CRC).
Methods: The Family CARE trial partnered with five population-based cancer registries in the United States. Mode and intensity of registry contact varied widely. We attempted to contact 3893 eligible CRC probands to identify their relatives and invite them to participate in the trial. Multiple logistic regression models were utilized to determine predictors of proband participation and relative enrollment. Results: 18.4% (n = 715) of probands who were asked to provide contact information on their relatives provided the information. Overall, 15.6 (range = 8-77) cancer cases were contacted for every one relative randomized. Factors significantly (p values < 0.05) associated with probands’ willingness to provide contact information on their at-risk relatives include younger age at diagnosis, more recent cancer diagnosis, non-Latino White ethnicity/race, female sex, and registry source/contact intensity. 79% (n=496) of eligible relatives enrolled and were randomized to one of the two intervention arms (targeted mailed intervention vs. individualized phone and mailed print intervention). The participation of another at-risk family member in the trial (OR=1.67; 95% CI = 1.08-2.59; p = 0.001) and registry source (p < 0.01) emerged as independent predictors of relatives’ participation.
Conclusion: Participation rates varied widely across registries, which may in part be due to differences in contact intensity. Adequate resources are required to maximize family participation. Our findings can guide the design of future family-based cancer prevention trials utilizing cancer registries to reach relatives of CRC probands with potentially life-saving health communications.