4.5 Article

A randomised controlled trial of a pilot intervention to encourage early presentation of oral cancer in high risk groups

Journal

PATIENT EDUCATION AND COUNSELING
Volume 88, Issue 2, Pages 241-248

Publisher

ELSEVIER IRELAND LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.pec.2012.03.015

Keywords

Oral cancer; Early detection; One-to-one; Leaflet; Self-regulatory model; Social Cognitive Theory

Funding

  1. Cancer Research UK [C19770/A6289, A8554]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Objective: Prognosis for oral cancer is substantially improved when diagnosed early. This research aimed to evaluate an intervention to promote early presentation of oral cancer. Methods: Participants were randomly assigned to a leaflet group (n = 42), a one-to-one group (n = 46) or a control group (n = 24). Participants in the leaflet group read a theory-based (Extended Self-Regulatory Model; Social Cognitive Theory) leaflet on how to spot oral cancer early. Those in the one-to-one group received a brief, interactional discussion on early presentation of oral cancer and were then asked to read the leaflet. Participants in the control group received no information about oral cancer. Results: The leaflet and the one-to-one instruction led to more accurate knowledge of oral cancer, decreased anticipated delay, and increased understanding, likelihood and confidence to perform self-examination. Neither intervention raised participants' anxiety. There were minimal differences between the two interventions, yet both were superior to the control group. Conclusion: This piloting indicates the initial effectiveness of an brief intervention purposefully designed for people at risk of developing oral cancer. Practice implication: A low cost intervention may be a useful tool to encourage early detection of oral cancer. This could be embedded into routine consultations or an early detection programme. (C) 2012 Elsevier Ireland Ltd. All rights reserved.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available