Table 4.

Changes in cancer preventive factors for individuals who did not adhere to health recommendations at prescreening

TFSLControls
Smokers prescreening, N = 156n = 51n = 49n = 56
Nonsmokers prescreening, n000
Nonsmokers, 1-year follow-up, n746
ChangeP = 0.02P = 0.13P = 0.03
Adjusted 1-year outcome compared with the controls, by logistic regression, odds ratio (95%CI)2.33 (0.31 to 17.5)0.50 (0.03 to 7.55)1.00 (ref)
Weight, mean (kg), N = 620n = 178n = 217n = 225
Prescreening (SD)87.5 (12.6)87.0 (12.1)88.0 (12.5)
1-year follow-up (SD)87.1 (12.8)86.9 (12.5)88.1 (12.6)
Change−0.40 (−0.85 to 0.04)−0.14 (−0.51 to 0.23)0.12 (−0.17 to 0.40)
Adjusted 1-year outcome compared with the controls (95% CI)−0.84 (−1.47 to −0.22)−0.61 (−1.22 to 0.00)(ref)
Physical activity, mean 30 minutes times/week, N = 743n = 229n = 257n = 257
Prescreening (SD)3.1 (1.7)3.2 (1.6)2.8 (1.7)
1-year follow-up (SD)3.5 (2.3)3.5 (2.2)3.2 (2.2)
Change0.38 (0.17 to 0.59)0.32 (0.10 to 0.54)0.38 (0.19 to 0.58)
Adjusted 1-year outcome compared with the controls (95% CI)0.03 (−0.33 to 0.39)−0.11 (−0.47 to 0.25)(ref)
Alcoholic beverages, mean glasses/week, N = 77n = 22n = 29n = 26
Prescreening (SD)11.8 (3.9)12.7 (5.2)15.9 (7.8)
1-year follow-up (SD)10.3 (4.3)9.5 (5.2)15.6 (8.5)
Change−1.52 (−3.44 to 0.40)−3.20 (−5.40 to −1.00)−0.27 (−1.29 to 0.75)
Adjusted 1-year outcome compared with the controls (95% CI)−0.83 (−3.82 to 2.16)−4.98 (−7.83 to −2.13)(ref)
Fruits and vegetables, mean portions/day, N = 941n = 275n = 350n = 316
prescreening (SD)2.2 (1.1)2.2 (1.1)2.1 (1.1)
1-year follow-up (SD)2.3 (1.4)2.2 (1.1)2.2 (1.3)
Change0.13 (0.02 to 0.25)0.00 (−0.08 to 0.08)0.08 (−0.03 to 0.19)
Adjusted 1-year outcome compared with the controls (95% CI)0.12 (−0.04 to 0.28)−0.01 (−0.16 to 0.15)(ref)
Number of cancer preventive lifestyle behaviors ≤ 2, meana N = 641n = 192n = 235n = 214
Prescreening (SD)1.8 (0.4)1.8 (0.4)1.7 (0.5)
1-year follow-up (SD)1.9 (0.5)1.9 (0.5)1.8 (0.6)
Change0.11 (0.05 to 0.17)0.09 (0.03 to 0.15)0.08 (0.02 to 0.13)
Adjusted 1-year outcome compared with the controls (95% CI)0.08 (−0.00 to 0.17)0.03 (−0.06 to 0.11)(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. Paired t test was used to test mean changes and 95% CI. McNemar test was used to test for changes in smoking status, within the groups (TF, SL, and control), Intention-to-treat analyses were used. 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 value of the dependent variable, and prescreening weight along with prescreening value of the other lifestyle variables.

  • Abbreviation: ns, nonsignificant.

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