Impact of non-clinical community-based promotional campaigns on bowel cancer screening engagement: An integrative literature review. Issue 10 (October 2016)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Martini, Angelita; Morris, Julia N.; Preen, David
• Is Part Of: Patient education and counseling. Volume 99:Issue 10(2016)
• Page Start: 1549
• Page End: 1557
• Publication Date: 2016-10
• Subjects: Bowel cancer -- CRC -- Screening -- Promotion -- Campaign -- Intervention; Patient education -- Periodicals; Health counseling -- Periodicals; Health education -- Periodicals; Counseling -- Periodicals; Patient Education -- Periodicals; Éducation des patients -- Périodiques; Counseling -- Périodiques; Éducation sanitaire -- Périodiques; 615.5071
• DOI: 10.1016/j.pec.2016.05.012
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 0738-3991

Abstract

Highlights: Research has predominately focused on clinician-driven campaigns with theoretical underpinnings. Community and lay-health interventions may be overshadowed due to the clinical focus of bowel cancer screening promotion. Group education was the most commonly used promotional activity, but its outcomes were variable. Components of promotional campaigns are measured as a whole rather than individually assessed. Abstract: Objective: This paper reviewed the relationship between non-clinical, client-oriented promotional campaigns to raise bowel cancer awareness and screening engagement. Method: An integrative literature review using predefined search terms was conducted to summarise the accumulated knowledge. Data was analysed by coding and categorising, then synthesized through development of themes. Results: Eighteen of 116 studies met inclusion criteria. Promotional campaigns had varying impact on screening uptake for bowel cancer. Mass media was found to moderately increase screening, predominately amongst "worried well". Small media used in conjunction with other promotional activities, thus its effect on screening behaviours was unclear. One-on-one education was less effective and less feasible than group education in increasing intention to screen. Financial support was ineffective in increasing screening rates when compared to other promotional activities. Screening engagement increased because of special events and celebrity endorsement. Conclusion: Non-clinical promotional campaigns did impact uptake of bowel cancer screening engagement. However, little is evident on the effect of single types of promotion and most research is based on clinician-directed campaigns. Practice implications: Cancer awareness and screening promotions should be implemented at community and clinical level to maximize effectiveness. Such an approach will ensure promotional activities are targeting consumers, thus strengthening screening engagement.