Table 1.
Baseline Characteristics by Intervention Group for Intent-to-Treat Analysis
| Characteristic | TeleCARE (n = 232) | Brochure (n = 249) |
|---|---|---|
| Age—mean years (standard deviation) | 49.9 (9.0) | 50.8 (9.0) |
| Sex—no. (%) | ||
| Female | 91 (39.2) | 114 (45.8) |
| Male | 141 (60.8) | 135 (54.2) |
| Race/Ethnicity—no. (%) | ||
| Non-Latino white | 215 (92.2) | 239 (96.0) |
| Other/unreported | 17 (7.8) | 10 (4.0) |
| Marital Status—no. (%) | ||
| Currently married or living as married | 172 (74.1) | 191 (76.7) |
| Not currently married or living as married | 60 (25.9) | 58 (23.3) |
| Educational Level—no. (%) | ||
| High school or less | 51 (22.0) | 42 (16.9) |
| Post-high school | 100 (43.1) | 106 (42.6) |
| Bachelor's | 50 (21.6) | 64 (25.7) |
| Postgraduate | 31 (13.4) | 37 (14.9) |
| Residencea—no. (%) | ||
| Urban | 173 (74.6) | 199 (79.9) |
| Rural | 59 (25.4) | 50 (20.1) |
| Yearly Income ($) —no. (%) | ||
| <$30,000 | 46 (19.8) | 42 (16.8) |
| $30-49,999 | 42 (18.1) | 49 (19.7) |
| ≥$50,000 | 119 (51.3) | 134 (53.9) |
| Missing, refused | 25 (10.8) | 24 (9.6) |
| Employment Status—no. (%) | ||
| Employed | 166 (71.6) | 172 (69.1) |
| Not Employed | 66 (28.5) | 77 (30.9) |
| Health Insurance—no. (%) | ||
| Private | 164 (70.7) | 175 (70.3) |
| Public | 31 (13.4) | 23 (9.2) |
| No coverage | 37 (16.0) | 50 (20.1) |
| Missing | 0 (0.0) | 1 (0.4) |
| Relatives with colorectal cancer—no. (%) | ||
| 1 FDR, 0 SDR | 188 (81.0) | 202 (81.1) |
| ≥2 FDR, 0 SDR | 13 (5.6) | 18 (7.2) |
| 1 FDR, 1 SDR | 30 (12.9) | 22 (8.8) |
| 1 FDR, ≥2 SDR | 0 (0.0) | 6 (2.4) |
| ≥2 FDR, 1 SDR | 1 (0.4) | 1 (0.4) |
| 1 FDR, 0 SDR | 188 (81.0) | 202 (81.1) |
| ≥2 FDR, 0 SDR | 13 (5.6) | 18 (7.2) |
Abbreviations: FDR, first degree relative, SDR, second degree relative, ERS, Economic Research Service; RUCA; rural-urban computing area; Tele-CARE, Tele-Cancer Risk Assessment and Evaluation; USDA, US Department of Agriculture; WWAMI, Washington, Wyoming, Alaska, Montana, and Idaho.
Rural/urban residence was based on RUCA codes at the zip code level. RUCA codes were developed by the University of Washington Rural Health Research Center and the USDA ERS, with the support of the Federal Health Resource and Service Administration's Office of Rural Health Policy and the ERS using standard Census Bureau urbanized area and urban cluster definitions in combination with work commuting data to characterize census tracts and later zip codes.(47) The 10 RUCA categories were aggregated into urban (1-3) and rural (4-10), per the WWAMI Rural Health Research Center.