BACKGROUND: While indicated by guidelines, complete diagnostic evaluation, or CDE (i.e., colonoscopy or combined flexible sigmoidoscopy plus barium enema X ray), is often not recommended and performed for persons with an abnormal screening fecal occult blood test (FOBT) result. We initiated a randomized trial to assess the impact of a physician-oriented intervention on CDE rates in primary care practices. METHODS: In 1998, we identified 1,184 primary care physicians (PCPs) in 584 practices whose patients receivedFOBTs that are mailed annually by a managed care organization screening program. A total of 470 PCPs in 318 practices completed a baseline survey. Practices were randomly assigned either to a Control Group (N = 198) or to an Intervention Group (N = 120). Control Group practices received the screening program. Intervention Group practices received the screening program and the intervention (i.e., CDE reminder-feedback plus educational outreach). Practice CDE recommendation and performance rates are the primary outcomes to be measured in the study. RESULTS:Baseline CDE recommendation and performance rates were low and were comparable in Control and Intervention Group practices (54 to 57% and 39 to 40%, respectively). PCPs in the practices tended to view FOBT screening and CDE favorably, but had concerns about screening efficacy, time involved in CDE, and patient discomfort and adherence. Control Group physicians were more likely than Intervention Group physicians to believe that a mail-out FOBT screening program helps in the practice of medicine. CONCLUSIONS: We were able to enroll a high proportion of targeted primary care practices, measure practice characteristics and CDE rates at baseline, and develop and implement the intervention. Study outcome analyses will take into account baseline differences in practice characteristics. Copyright 2001 American Health Foundation and Academic Press.
RCT Entities:
BACKGROUND: While indicated by guidelines, complete diagnostic evaluation, or CDE (i.e., colonoscopy or combined flexible sigmoidoscopy plus barium enema X ray), is often not recommended and performed for persons with an abnormal screening fecal occult blood test (FOBT) result. We initiated a randomized trial to assess the impact of a physician-oriented intervention on CDE rates in primary care practices. METHODS: In 1998, we identified 1,184 primary care physicians (PCPs) in 584 practices whose patients received FOBTs that are mailed annually by a managed care organization screening program. A total of 470 PCPs in 318 practices completed a baseline survey. Practices were randomly assigned either to a Control Group (N = 198) or to an Intervention Group (N = 120). Control Group practices received the screening program. Intervention Group practices received the screening program and the intervention (i.e., CDE reminder-feedback plus educational outreach). Practice CDE recommendation and performance rates are the primary outcomes to be measured in the study. RESULTS: Baseline CDE recommendation and performance rates were low and were comparable in Control and Intervention Group practices (54 to 57% and 39 to 40%, respectively). PCPs in the practices tended to view FOBT screening and CDE favorably, but had concerns about screening efficacy, time involved in CDE, and patient discomfort and adherence. Control Group physicians were more likely than Intervention Group physicians to believe that a mail-out FOBT screening program helps in the practice of medicine. CONCLUSIONS: We were able to enroll a high proportion of targeted primary care practices, measure practice characteristics and CDE rates at baseline, and develop and implement the intervention. Study outcome analyses will take into account baseline differences in practice characteristics. Copyright 2001 American Health Foundation and Academic Press.
Authors: Masahito Jimbo; Birgit Meyer; Terry Hyslop; James Cocroft; Barbara J Turner; David S Weinberg; Ronald E Myers Journal: Cancer Detect Prev Date: 2006-11-17
Authors: Adrianne C Feldstein; Nancy Perrin; Elizabeth G Liles; David H Smith; Ana G Rosales; Jennifer L Schneider; Jennifer E Lafata; Ronald E Myers; David M Mosen; Russell E Glasgow Journal: Med Decis Making Date: 2011-06-07 Impact factor: 2.583
Authors: Melissa R Partin; Amy A Gravely; James F Burgess; David A Haggstrom; Sarah E Lillie; David B Nelson; Sean M Nugent; Aasma Shaukat; Shahnaz Sultan; Louise C Walter; Diana J Burgess Journal: Cancer Date: 2017-05-11 Impact factor: 6.860
Authors: Christoph Heintze; Dorothea Matysiak-Klose; Thorsten Kröhn; Ute Wolf; Alexander Brand; Christoph Meisner; Imma Fischer; Hartwig Wehrmeyer; Vittoria Braun Journal: Br J Gen Pract Date: 2005-01 Impact factor: 5.386
Authors: Beverly B Green; Melissa L Anderson; Ching-Yun Wang; Sally W Vernon; Jessica Chubak; Richard T Meenan; Sharon Fuller Journal: J Am Board Fam Med Date: 2014 Nov-Dec Impact factor: 2.657
Authors: Richard G Roetzheim; Ji-Hyun Lee; Ercilia R Calcano; Cathy D Meade; William J Fulp; Kristen J Wells Journal: J Health Care Poor Underserved Date: 2012-08
Authors: Masahito Jimbo; Ronald E Myers; Birgit Meyer; Terry Hyslop; James Cocroft; Barbara J Turner; David S Weinberg Journal: Ann Fam Med Date: 2009 Jan-Feb Impact factor: 5.166
Authors: Sherri Sheinfeld Gorin; Alfred R Ashford; Rafael Lantigua; Manisha Desai; Andrea Troxel; Donald Gemson Journal: Implement Sci Date: 2007-12-17 Impact factor: 7.327
Authors: Beverly B Green; Laura-Mae Baldwin; Imara I West; Malaika Schwartz; Gloria D Coronado Journal: J Prim Care Community Health Date: 2020 Jan-Dec