Literature DB >> 15798035

Long-term results from a randomized controlled trial to increase cancer screening among attendees of community health centers.

Richard G Roetzheim1, Lisa K Christman, Paul B Jacobsen, Jennifer Schroeder, Rania Abdulla, Seft Hunter.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: We assessed whether increased cancer screening rates that were observed with Cancer Screening Office Systems (Cancer SOS) could be maintained at 24 months' follow-up, a period in which clinics were expected to be largely self-sufficient in maintaining the intervention.
METHODS: Eight primary care clinics serving disadvantaged populations in Hills-borough County, Fla, agreed to take part in a cluster-randomized experimental trial. Charts of independent samples of established patients aged 50 to 75 years were abstracted, with data collected at baseline (n = 1,196) and at 24 months' follow-up (n = 1,296). Papanicolaou (Pap) smears, mammography, and fecal occult blood testing were assessed.
RESULTS: At 24 months of follow-up, intervention patients had received a greater number of cancer screening tests (mean 1.17 tests vs 0.94 tests, t test = 4.42, P <.0001). In multivariate analysis that controlled for baseline screening rates, secular trends, and other patient and clinic characteristics, the intervention increased the odds of mammograms slightly (odds ratio [OR]) = 1.26; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.02-1.55; P = .03) but had no effect on fecal occult blood tests (OR = 1.17; 95% CI, 0.92-1.48; P =0.19) or Pap smears (OR = 0.88; 95% CI, 0.0.68-1.15; P = .34).
CONCLUSIONS: The Cancer SOS intervention had persistent, although modest, effects on screening at 24 months' follow-up, an effect that had clearly diminished from results reported at 12 months' follow-up. Further study is needed to develop successful intervention strategies that are either self-sustaining or that are able to produce long-term changes in screening behavior.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2005        PMID: 15798035      PMCID: PMC1466861          DOI: 10.1370/afm.240

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Ann Fam Med        ISSN: 1544-1709            Impact factor:   5.166


  49 in total

Review 1.  Effectiveness of interventions to enhance physician screening for breast cancer.

Authors:  J Mandelblatt; P A Kanetsky
Journal:  J Fam Pract       Date:  1995-02       Impact factor: 0.493

2.  The late-stage diagnosis of colorectal cancer: demographic and socioeconomic factors.

Authors:  J Mandelblatt; H Andrews; R Kao; R Wallace; J Kerner
Journal:  Am J Public Health       Date:  1996-12       Impact factor: 9.308

3.  Racial differences in survival from breast cancer. Results of the National Cancer Institute Black/White Cancer Survival Study.

Authors:  J W Eley; H A Hill; V W Chen; D F Austin; M N Wesley; H B Muss; R S Greenberg; R J Coates; P Correa; C K Redmond
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  1994-09-28       Impact factor: 56.272

4.  Cancer early-detection services in community health centers for the underserved. A randomized controlled trial.

Authors:  A J Dietrich; J N Tobin; C H Sox; A N Cassels; F Negron; R G Younge; N A Demby; T D Tosteson
Journal:  Arch Fam Med       Date:  1998 Jul-Aug

5.  Prescribe for health. Improving cancer screening in physician practices serving low-income and minority populations.

Authors:  C Manfredi; R Czaja; S Freels; M Trubitt; R Warnecke; L Lacey
Journal:  Arch Fam Med       Date:  1998 Jul-Aug

6.  Has the use of cervical, breast, and colorectal cancer screening increased in the United States?

Authors:  L M Anderson; D S May
Journal:  Am J Public Health       Date:  1995-06       Impact factor: 9.308

7.  Black women receive less mammography even with similar use of primary care.

Authors:  R B Burns; E P McCarthy; K M Freund; S L Marwill; M Shwartz; A Ash; M A Moskowitz
Journal:  Ann Intern Med       Date:  1996-08-01       Impact factor: 25.391

8.  Black-white differences in the stage at presentation of prostate cancer in the District of Columbia.

Authors:  S C Ndubuisi; V Y Kofie; J Y Andoh; E M Schwartz
Journal:  Urology       Date:  1995-07       Impact factor: 2.649

9.  Breast and cervical cancer screening among underserved women. Baseline survey results from six states. The National Cancer Institute Cancer Screening Consortium for Underserved Women.

Authors: 
Journal:  Arch Fam Med       Date:  1995-07

10.  Who uses screening mammography regularly?

Authors:  J R Lee; V G Vogel
Journal:  Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev       Date:  1995-12       Impact factor: 4.254

View more
  20 in total

Review 1.  Systematic review and meta-analysis of practice facilitation within primary care settings.

Authors:  N Bruce Baskerville; Clare Liddy; William Hogg
Journal:  Ann Fam Med       Date:  2012 Jan-Feb       Impact factor: 5.166

Review 2.  Interventions to promote colorectal cancer screening: an integrative review.

Authors:  Susan M Rawl; Usha Menon; Allison Burness; Erica S Breslau
Journal:  Nurs Outlook       Date:  2012-01-18       Impact factor: 3.250

3.  Appalachian women's perspectives on breast and cervical cancer screening.

Authors:  Nancy E Schoenberg; Tina M Kruger; Shoshana Bardach; Britteny M Howell
Journal:  Rural Remote Health       Date:  2013-09-10       Impact factor: 1.759

4.  Impact of continued mailed fecal tests in the patient-centered medical home: Year 3 of the Systems of Support to Increase Colon Cancer Screening and Follow-Up randomized trial.

Authors:  Beverly B Green; Melissa L Anderson; Jessica Chubak; Sharon Fuller; Richard T Meenan; Sally W Vernon
Journal:  Cancer       Date:  2015-10-21       Impact factor: 6.860

5.  Evaluation of Interventions Intended to Increase Colorectal Cancer Screening Rates in the United States: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.

Authors:  Michael K Dougherty; Alison T Brenner; Seth D Crockett; Shivani Gupta; Stephanie B Wheeler; Manny Coker-Schwimmer; Laura Cubillos; Teri Malo; Daniel S Reuland
Journal:  JAMA Intern Med       Date:  2018-12-01       Impact factor: 21.873

6.  Program to improve colorectal cancer screening in a low-income, racially diverse population: a randomized controlled trial.

Authors:  Muriel Jean-Jacques; Erin O Kaleba; John L Gatta; Gabriela Gracia; Elizabeth R Ryan; Bechara N Choucair
Journal:  Ann Fam Med       Date:  2012 Sep-Oct       Impact factor: 5.166

7.  The effects of teamwork and system support on colorectal cancer screening in primary care practices.

Authors:  Shawna V Hudson; Pamela Ohman-Strickland; Regina Cunningham; Jeanne M Ferrante; Karissa Hahn; Benjamin F Crabtree
Journal:  Cancer Detect Prev       Date:  2007-11-26

Review 8.  Interventions to enhance breast cancer screening, diagnosis, and treatment among racial and ethnic minority women.

Authors:  Christopher M Masi; Dionne J Blackman; Monica E Peek
Journal:  Med Care Res Rev       Date:  2007-10       Impact factor: 3.929

9.  Translation of an efficacious cancer-screening intervention to women enrolled in a Medicaid managed care organization.

Authors:  Allen J Dietrich; Jonathan N Tobin; Andrea Cassells; Christina M Robinson; Meredith Reh; Karen A Romero; Ann Barry Flood; Michael L Beach
Journal:  Ann Fam Med       Date:  2007 Jul-Aug       Impact factor: 5.166

10.  Analysis of group randomized trials with multiple binary endpoints and small number of groups.

Authors:  Ji-Hyun Lee; Michael J Schell; Richard Roetzheim
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2009-10-21       Impact factor: 3.240

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.