Skip to main content
NIHPA Author Manuscripts logoLink to NIHPA Author Manuscripts
. Author manuscript; available in PMC: 2019 Oct 1.
Published in final edited form as: J Community Health. 2018 Oct;43(5):882–885. doi: 10.1007/s10900-018-0497-x

Development and feasibility of a community-based, culturally flexible colorectal cancer prevention program

Margaret Raber 1, To Nhu Huynh 2, Karla Crawford 3, Stephanie Kim 4, Joya Chandra 5
PMCID: PMC6119495  NIHMSID: NIHMS950388  PMID: 29532214

Background

Increased colorectal cancer screening is estimated to be responsible for over half a million fewer colorectal cancer cases in the last three decades. [1] Despite this prevention success, total cancer incidence in diverse communities remains high [2], and colorectal cancer remains one of the most commonly diagnosed cancers in the United States [3]; possibly due to modern industrialized lifestyle factors such as increased adiposity and insufficient physical activity, which increase colorectal cancer risk [4]. Therefore, colorectal cancer prevention strategies target diet, physical activity, and/or screening behaviors.

Comprehensive cancer centers are an important resource for direct patient care and may serve as facilitators for community-based prevention efforts in their catchment areas [5, 6]. Racial and ethnic disparities in colorectal cancer incidence and survival [3] highlight the need for targeted messaging as communities across the U.S. become more diverse, representing increasingly multi-cultural settings for prevention efforts. [7] Houston, Texas, is an example of such an area, with 145 languages spoken and city information offered in six languages. Increased population diversity requires cancer institutions to tailor prevention messaging for a variety of communities. The aim of this paper is to describe the development and feasibility of a comprehensive cancer center’s culturally flexible, multi-component colorectal cancer prevention program. Key elements of the program are presented, and community implementation explored.

Methods

Setting and Participants

A three-session Colorectal Cancer Education Program (CCEP) was developed and delivered by the Community Relations and Education (CRE) team at The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, which funded the project.

The audiences of the CCEP were people over 40 years old, as recommended screening begins around age 50 [8]; Houston’s Hispanic and Asian communities were targeted as they represent major minority groups in the area that may face cultural and linguistic barriers to traditional health resources [9]. In order to simplify administrative procedures, the CRE team partnered with community sites to promote and host the workshops. Sites included community centers, non-profit organizations and places of worship and were recruited by leveraging existing relationships. Each site had a coordinator or point of contact who worked closely with the CRE team to recruit, plan and implement the program.

Program Components

The CCEP was available in English, Spanish and Vietnamese. Separate sessions were held for each language available depending on the site. The three-session format included Colorectal Cancer 101, Physical Activity class and a Healthy Cooking demonstration explained below (Figure 1). Each session lasted approximately one hour and were taught by trained, bilingual health education specialists.

Fig. 1. Process of CCEP and total sites by language.

Fig. 1

This scheme shows how community sites and the cancer center organized classes and total number of unique sites, classes and participants by language of class. Four of five Spanish language classes took place at community centers and one at a school. Four Vietnamese classes took place at a refugee center and one Chinese language class at a Buddhist temple. English only classes included one breast cancer survivor group and one women’s health fair. CRE = Community Relations & Education

Colorectal Cancer 101

The Colorectal Cancer 101 class covered risk factors of colorectal cancer and screening exams. The course included a slideshow presentation, culturally appropriate brochures and action cards, and promotional items with key messages. The presentation focused on the basics of colorectal cancer biology, statistics, modifiable and non-modifiable risk factors, details of screening exams and available resources.

Healthy Cooking Demonstrations

Cooking demonstrations began with a short review of dietary factors that impact colorectal cancer risk such as red meat and fiber intake. Recipes were demonstrated and all participants were given an opportunity to taste the final dishes. During the demonstration, key skills of healthy cooking were highlighted [10]. Recipes were translated and given as handouts during classes, as well as posted to an institutional recipe site (www.mdanderson.org/recipes) [11].

Physical Activity Class

Physical activity classes lasted for 30-45 minutes, followed by a brief discussion to reinforce concepts of colorectal cancer risk reduction. All physical activity classes included both demonstration and class participation.

Results/Implementation

The CCEP was conducted from June 2016 to February 2017. All events were free of charge to participants and community host sites. Small incentives were offered to participants such as water bottles, and $20 gift cards were offered for participants that attended at least two of the three classes. During the program period, eleven three-session courses (33 total classes) were conducted at nine unique organizations in Houston and surrounding areas. Classes were usually held weekly for a three-week series. A total of 1,054 participants attended the 33 classes combined (Figure 1). This included 770 unique participants and 284 that attended at least two of the three classes. Average attendance was 31.94 and varied little from week to week.

Program adaptation

The CCEP utilized a similar process for every site, but modifications were made to accommodate each community center’s physical space as well as cultural adaptations for each individual group. When possible, the adaptations made were decided with members of the target community. The Colorectal Cancer 101 presentation used diverse images to better reflect the community being targeted and highlighted statistics pertinent to racial / ethnic subgroups during the course.

Cooking demonstrations were developed with community input to ensure relevance to an individual group’s needs and interests. The culinary instructor conducted a short discussion with participants regarding recipes, ingredients, or techniques the group would be interested in using during the subsequent cooking demonstration. Recipes suggested by the group were altered or developed using an evidence-based framework of healthy cooking [10].

Physical activity classes were also adapted for different groups and included a variety of aerobic movements and accompanying music. For predominately Asian communities, MD Anderson partnered with a local Tai Chi academy to have certified instructors provide Tai Chi and qigong classes for participants.

Discussion

The CCEP is a feasible, flexible, multi-component colorectal cancer prevention program facilitated by a comprehensive cancer center in a large urban area. The program partnered with nine unique community organizations and conducted 33 individual classes to 1,054 participants across multiple ethnic groups.

Current comprehensive cancer center prevention strategies vary by malignancy, institution, and target audience. Colorectal cancer prevention is a sensible target for institutions given the prevalence of colorectal cancer in the nation, the disparity among different racial/ethnic groups, the dramatic impact appropriate screening can have on survivorship, and the growing evidence that modifiable lifestyle factors significantly contribute to risk [3, 4]. Nutrition and exercise interventions, as well as screening-focused programs are relevant to colorectal cancer prevention, allowing institutions to vary approaches based on community want and need.

Comprehensive cancer center prevention efforts may target established education centers such as schools with structured curricula [12]or develop more organic networks of community partners to support the dissemination of cancer prevention messaging in catchment areas. One example is the partnership between the Wisconsin Division of Public Health and the University of Wisconsin Comprehensive Cancer Center, which leverages the state public health department to connect with local communities in the region [6]. A more targeted network approach includes the Greater Denver Latino Cancer Prevention Network, a collaborative of over 23 Latino community-based organizations in partnership with the University of Colorado Comprehensive Cancer Center (UCCCC) to promote awareness, cancer risk factors, screening recommendations and minority participation in research [13]. UCCCC also formed a separate network of partnerships with local safety-net clinics to provide free colonoscopy to older, uninsured Coloradans [14].

The CCEP utilizes a combination approach by offering a structured, class-based curriculum, while also leveraging community partnerships in an effort to reach specific communities. It also utilizes a participatory approach in program planning and implementation, which allows the program to adjust for diverse groups; this is essential in multicultural catchment areas. The program costs were approximately $1,933 per year, excluding staff time, or about $1.70 per class participant. The CCEP program has been used as a model for tobacco prevention and cessation efforts undertaken by the institution.

The strength of this communication includes the unique partnership model between a comprehensive cancer center and community organizations and the diversity of the community sites. Vietnamese, Chinese, and Hispanic groups were reached, as were others in the general community. Future projects should consider evaluating the efficacy of the CCEP in different populations by integrating measures of knowledge acquisition, behavior change and implementation/dissemination into programming.

Acknowledgments

We would like to acknowledge the staff of MD Anderson’s Community Relations and Education department including Francine Huckaby, Terrence Adams, Patricia Priego, as well as the Tai Chi Academy of Houston, all community site contacts and participants, and the Colorectal Cancer Coalition. We are grateful for support from the MD Anderson Cancer Center Support Grant (P30 CA16672) and the Center for Energy Balance in Cancer Prevention and Survivorship, Duncan Family Institute. MR is supported by the National Cancer Institute of the National Institutes of Health, Award Number R25CA057730 (PI: Shine Chang, PhD) and the Archer Foundation. The content is solely the responsibility of the authors and does not necessarily represent the official views of the NIH.

This study was reviewed and approved by the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center Institutional Review Board (#PA18-0098).

Funding: This study was funded by the MD Anderson Cancer Center Support Grant (P30 CA16672) and the Center for Energy Balance in Cancer Prevention and Survivorship, Duncan Family Institute. MR is supported by the National Cancer Institute of the National Institutes of Health, Award Number R25CA057730 (PI: Shine Chang, PhD) and the Archer Foundation. The content is solely the responsibility of the authors and does not necessarily represent the official views of the NIH.

Footnotes

Compliance with Ethical Standards:

Conflict of Interest: The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Contributor Information

Margaret Raber, Graduate Research Asst., Pediatrics Research.

To Nhu Huynh, Community Relations Specialist, Community Relations.

Karla Crawford, Research Dietitian, Pediatrics Research.

Stephanie Kim, Director of Public Education, Community Relations.

Joya Chandra, Associate Professor, Pediatrics Research, University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, 1515 Holcombe, Houston, Texas 77030.

References

  • 1.Yang Daniel X, Gross Cary P, Soulos Pamela R, Yu James B. Estimating the magnitude of colorectal cancers prevented during the era of screening: 1976 to 2009. Cancer. 2014;120:2893–2901. doi: 10.1002/cncr.28794. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 2.Zahnd WE, James AS, Jenkins WD, Izadi SR, Fogleman AJ, Steward DE, Colditz GA, Brard L. Rural-Urban Differences in Cancer Incidence and Trends in the United States. Cancer epidemiology, biomarkers & prevention : a publication of the American Association for Cancer Research, cosponsored by the American Society of Preventive Oncology. 2017 doi: 10.1158/1055-9965.EPI-17-0430. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Siegel RL, Miller KD, Jemal A. Cancer Statistics, 2017. CA: a cancer journal for clinicians. 2017;67:7–30. doi: 10.3322/caac.21387. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Norat T, Chan D, Lau R, Aune D, Vieira R. The Associations Between Food, Nutrition and Physical Activity and the Risk of Colorectal Cancer: WCRF/AICR Systematic Literature Review Continuous Update Project Report. Imperial College London: WCRF/AICR 2010 [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Lisovicz Nedra, Johnson Rhoda E, Higginbotham John, Downey Jennifer A, Hardy Claudia M, Fouad Mona N, Hinton Agnes W, Partridge Edward E. The Deep South network for cancer control. Cancer. 2006;107:1971–1979. doi: 10.1002/cncr.22151. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Treml K, Conlon AE, Wegner MV, Baliker M, Remington P. Wisconsin’s health department-university partnership model for comprehensive cancer control. Preventing chronic disease. 2009;6:A58. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Council, Housing Assistance. Race & ethnicity in rural America. Rural Research Briefs. 2012 Apr;:1283–1288. [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Bibbins-Domingo Kirsten, Grossman David C, Curry Susan J, Davidson Karina W, Epling John W, García Francisco AR, Gillman Matthew W, Harper Diane M, Kemper Alex R, Krist Alex H. Screening for colorectal cancer: US Preventive Services Task Force recommendation statement. Jama. 2016;315:2564–2575. doi: 10.1001/jama.2016.5989. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Scheppers Emmanuel, Van Dongen Els, Dekker Jos, Geertzen Jan, Dekker Joost. Potential barriers to the use of health services among ethnic minorities: a review. Family practice. 2006;23:325–348. doi: 10.1093/fampra/cmi113. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Raber Margaret, Chandra Joya, Upadhyaya Mudita, Schick Vanessa, Strong Larkin L, Durand Casey, Sharma Shreela. An evidence-based conceptual framework of healthy cooking. Preventive Medicine Reports. 2016 doi: 10.1016/j.pmedr.2016.05.004. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Li R, Raber M, Chandra J. Developing a healthy web-based cookbook for pediatric cancer patients and survivors: rationale and methods. JMIR research protocols. 2015;4:e37. doi: 10.2196/resprot.3777. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Barg Frances K, Lowe Jane Isaacs. A Culturally Appropriate Cancer Education Program for African‐American Adolescents in an Urban Middle School. Journal of school health. 1996;66:50–54. doi: 10.1111/j.1746-1561.1996.tb07908.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Flores Estevan, Espinoza Paula, Jacobellis Jillian, Bakemeier Richard, Norma Press The greater Denver Latino Cancer Prevention/Control Network. Cancer. 2006;107:2034–2042. doi: 10.1002/cncr.22146. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Wolf Holly J, Dwyer Andrea, Ahnen Dennis J, Pray Shannon L, Rein Susan M, Morwood Krystal D, Lowery Jan T, Masias Andrea, Collins Nicole J, Brown Carol E. Colon cancer screening for Colorado’s underserved: a community clinic/academic partnership. American Journal of Preventive Medicine. 2015;48:264–270. doi: 10.1016/j.amepre.2014.09.016. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

RESOURCES