Table 3.

Changes in cancer preventive factors.

TF (n = 308)SL (n = 392)Control (n = 354)
Nonsmoker (%)
 Prescreening83.487.583.3
 1-year follow up86.688.586.8
 Changeansnsns
Adjusted 1-year outcome compared with the controls, odds ratio (95% CI)2.38 (0.56 to 10.2)1.85 (0.41 to 8.28)1.00 (ref)
Weight, mean (kg)
 Prescreening (SD)79.6 (14.7)78.7 (14.9)80.8 (15.1)
 1-year follow-up, (SD)79.6 (14.8)78.6 (15.0)80.8 (15.2)
 Change (95% CI)−0.08 (−0.37 to 0.22)−0.03 (−0.28 to 0.22)0.17(−0.07 to 0.41)
 Adjusted 1-year outcome compared with the controls (95% CI)−0.27 (−0.73 to 0.19)−0.39 (−0.83 to 0.06)(ref)
Physical activity, mean 30 minutes times/week
 Prescreening (SD)4.2 (2.8)4.7 (3.0)4.1 (2.9)
 1-year follow-up, (SD)4.2 (2.7)4.7 (3.0)4.0 (2.8)
 Change (95% CI)−0.01 (−0.22 to 0.21)−0.06 (−0.27 to 0.14)−0.05 (−0.26 to 0.16)
 Adjusted 1-year outcome compared with the controls (95% CI)0.14 (−0.19 to 0.48)0.04 (−0.29 to 0.37)(ref)
Alcoholic beverages, mean glasses/week
 Prescreening (SD)4.2 (15.4)4.4 (9.1)3.8 (5.0)
 1-year follow-up (SD)4.4 (15.6)4.0 (5.7)4.0 (5.2)
 Change (95% CI)0.23 (−0.12 to 0.57)−0.41 (−1.18 to 0.35)0.18 (−0.09 to 0.44)
 Adjusted 1-year outcome compared with the controls (95% CI)−0.27 (−0.68 to 0.14)−0.54 (−0.94 to −0.14)(ref)
Fruits and vegetables, mean portions/day
 Prescreening (SD)2.3 (1.3)2.3 (1.3)2.2 (1.4)
 1-year follow-up (SD)2.4 (1.5)2.3 (1.3)2.2 (1.4)
 Change (95% CI)0.11 (0.00 to 0.23)−0.04 (−0.12 to 0.05)0.02 (−0.11 to −0.14)
 Adjusted 1-year outcome compared with the controls (95% CI)0.12 (−0.05 to 0.28)−0.01 (−0.16 to 0.15)(ref)
bNumber of cancer preventive lifestyle behaviors, mean number
 Prescreening (SD)2.0 (0.7)2.1 (0.7)2.0 (0.7)
 1-year follow-up (SD)2.1 (0.7)2.1 (0.6)2.0 (0.7)
 Change (95% CI)0.02 (−0.04 to 0.09)−0.03 (−0.08 to 0.03)−0.04 (−0.10 to 0.02)
 Adjusted 1-year outcome compared with the controls (95% CI)0.11 (0.02 to 0.19)0.06 (−0.02 to 0.14)(ref)
  • NOTE: A randomized trial of tailored lifestyle feedback in a sub study of the sigmoidoscopy arm of the bowel cancer screening in Norway: a pilot study. N = 1,054 (Intention-to-treat analyses).In the adjusted models, differences in change of lifestyle between TF versus control and SL versus control were tested. A logistic regression model was used for smoking and ANCOVA for the other lifestyle variables. The adjusted models were controlled for age, sex, screening center, ethnicity, marital status, working status, education length, prescreening weight, and prescreening value of the dependent variable along with prescreening value of the other lifestyle variables. Paired t test was used to test mean changes and 95% CI.

  • Abbreviation: ns, nonsignificant.

  • aMcNemar test was used to test for changes in smoking status, within the groups (TF, SL, and control). Intention-to-treat analyses were used.

  • bThe number of cancer preventive lifestyle behaviors were adjusted for age, sex, screening center, ethnicity, working status, education length, prescreening weight, and the prescreening number of cancer preventive lifestyle behaviors.