PURPOSE: Colorectal cancer screening is underused, particularly in the Veterans Affairs (VA) population. In a randomized controlled trial, a health care provider-directed intervention that offered quarterly feedback to physicians on their patients' colorectal cancer screening rates led to a 9% increase in colorectal cancer screening rates among veterans. The objective of this secondary analysis was to assess the cost effectiveness of the colorectal cancer screening promotion intervention. METHODS: Providers in the intervention arm attended an educational workshop on colorectal cancer screening and received confidential feedback on individual and group-specific colorectal cancer screening rates. The primary end point was completion of colorectal cancer screening tests. Sensitivity analyses investigated cost-effectiveness estimates varying the data collection methods, costs of labor and technology, and the effectiveness of the intervention. RESULTS:Rates of colorectal cancer screening for the intervention versus control arms were 41.3% v 32.4%, respectively (P < .05). The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was dollar 978 per additional veteran screened based on feedback reports generated from manual review of records. However, if feedback reports could be generated from information technology systems, sensitivity analyses indicate that the cost-effectiveness estimate would decrease to dollar 196 per additional veteran screened. CONCLUSION: An intervention based on quarterly feedback reports to physicians improved colorectal cancer screening rates at a VA medical center. This intervention would be cost effective if relevant data could be generated by existing information technology systems. Our findings may have broad applicability because a 2005 Medicare initiative will provide the VA electronic medical record system as a free benefit to all US physicians.
RCT Entities:
PURPOSE:Colorectal cancer screening is underused, particularly in the Veterans Affairs (VA) population. In a randomized controlled trial, a health care provider-directed intervention that offered quarterly feedback to physicians on their patients' colorectal cancer screening rates led to a 9% increase in colorectal cancer screening rates among veterans. The objective of this secondary analysis was to assess the cost effectiveness of the colorectal cancer screening promotion intervention. METHODS: Providers in the intervention arm attended an educational workshop on colorectal cancer screening and received confidential feedback on individual and group-specific colorectal cancer screening rates. The primary end point was completion of colorectal cancer screening tests. Sensitivity analyses investigated cost-effectiveness estimates varying the data collection methods, costs of labor and technology, and the effectiveness of the intervention. RESULTS: Rates of colorectal cancer screening for the intervention versus control arms were 41.3% v 32.4%, respectively (P < .05). The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was dollar 978 per additional veteran screened based on feedback reports generated from manual review of records. However, if feedback reports could be generated from information technology systems, sensitivity analyses indicate that the cost-effectiveness estimate would decrease to dollar 196 per additional veteran screened. CONCLUSION: An intervention based on quarterly feedback reports to physicians improved colorectal cancer screening rates at a VA medical center. This intervention would be cost effective if relevant data could be generated by existing information technology systems. Our findings may have broad applicability because a 2005 Medicare initiative will provide the VA electronic medical record system as a free benefit to all US physicians.
Authors: Kimberly A Mc Cord; Hannah Ewald; Aviv Ladanie; Matthias Briel; Benjamin Speich; Heiner C Bucher; Lars G Hemkens Journal: CMAJ Open Date: 2019-02-03
Authors: Richard T Meenan; Melissa L Anderson; Jessica Chubak; Sally W Vernon; Sharon Fuller; Ching-Yun Wang; Beverly B Green Journal: Am J Prev Med Date: 2015-06 Impact factor: 5.043
Authors: Christina M Robinson; Michael L Beach; Mary Ann Greene; Andrea Cassells; Jonathan N Tobin; Allen J Dietrich Journal: J Ambul Care Manage Date: 2010 Apr-Jun
Authors: David R Lairson; Melissa Dicarlo; Ashish A Deshmuk; Heather B Fagan; Randa Sifri; Nora Katurakes; James Cocroft; Jocelyn Sendecki; Heidi Swan; Sally W Vernon; Ronald E Myers Journal: Cancer Date: 2014-01-16 Impact factor: 6.860
Authors: Terry C Davis; Connie L Arnold; Charles L Bennett; Michael S Wolf; Cristalyn Reynolds; Dachao Liu; Alfred Rademaker Journal: Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev Date: 2013-11-05 Impact factor: 4.254
Authors: Giridhar Mohan; Sajal K Chattopadhyay; Donatus U Ekwueme; Susan A Sabatino; Devon L Okasako-Schmucker; Yinan Peng; Shawna L Mercer; Anilkrishna B Thota Journal: Am J Prev Med Date: 2019-08-30 Impact factor: 5.043
Authors: Veena Shankaran; Thanh Ha Luu; Narissa Nonzee; Elizabeth Richey; June M McKoy; Joshua Graff Zivin; Alfred Ashford; Rafael Lantigua; Harold Frucht; Marc Scoppettone; Charles L Bennett; Sherri Sheinfeld Gorin Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2009-10-13 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Cori M Green; Samantha B Berkule; Benard P Dreyer; Arthur H Fierman; Harris S Huberman; Perri E Klass; Suzy Tomopoulos; Hsiang Shonna Yin; Lesley M Morrow; Alan L Mendelsohn Journal: Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med Date: 2009-09
Authors: Kishore Khankari; Mickey Eder; Chandra Y Osborn; Gregory Makoul; Marla Clayman; Silvia Skripkauskas; Linda Diamond-Shapiro; Dan Makundan; Michael S Wolf Journal: J Gen Intern Med Date: 2007-07-26 Impact factor: 5.128