OBJECTIVES: We compared the effectiveness of a telephone outreach approach versus a direct mail approach in improving rates of colorectal cancer (CRC) screening in a predominantly Black population. METHODS: A randomized trial was conducted between 2000 and 2003 that followed 456 participants in the New York metropolitan area who had not had recent CRC screening. The intervention group received tailored telephone outreach, and the control group received mailed printed materials. The primary outcome was medically documented CRC screening 6 months or less after randomization. RESULTS:CRC screening was documented in 61 of 226 (27.0%) intervention participants and in 14 of 230 (6.1%) controls (prevalence rate difference=20.9%; 95% CI = 14.34, 27.46). Compared with the control group, the intervention group was 4.4 times more likely to receive CRC screening within 6 months of randomization. CONCLUSIONS:Tailored telephone outreach can increase CRC screening in an urban minority population.
RCT Entities:
OBJECTIVES: We compared the effectiveness of a telephone outreach approach versus a direct mail approach in improving rates of colorectal cancer (CRC) screening in a predominantly Black population. METHODS: A randomized trial was conducted between 2000 and 2003 that followed 456 participants in the New York metropolitan area who had not had recent CRC screening. The intervention group received tailored telephone outreach, and the control group received mailed printed materials. The primary outcome was medically documented CRC screening 6 months or less after randomization. RESULTS: CRC screening was documented in 61 of 226 (27.0%) intervention participants and in 14 of 230 (6.1%) controls (prevalence rate difference=20.9%; 95% CI = 14.34, 27.46). Compared with the control group, the intervention group was 4.4 times more likely to receive CRC screening within 6 months of randomization. CONCLUSIONS: Tailored telephone outreach can increase CRC screening in an urban minority population.
Authors: C P Theuer; J L Wagner; T H Taylor; W R Brewster; D Tran; C E McLaren; H Anton-Culver Journal: Gastroenterology Date: 2001-03 Impact factor: 22.682
Authors: Anne M Stoddard; Sarah A Fox; Mary E Costanza; Dorothy S Lane; M Robyn Andersen; Nicole Urban; Isaac Lipkus; Barbara K Rimer Journal: Prev Med Date: 2002-01 Impact factor: 4.018
Authors: Arnold L Potosky; Linda C Harlan; Richard S Kaplan; Karen A Johnson; Charles F Lynch Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2002-03-01 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Sally W Vernon; Leona K Bartholomew; Amy McQueen; Judy L Bettencourt; Anthony Greisinger; Sharon P Coan; David Lairson; Wenyaw Chan; S T Hawley; R E Myers Journal: Ann Behav Med Date: 2011-06
Authors: David M Mosen; Adrianne C Feldstein; Nancy Perrin; A Gabriela Rosales; David H Smith; Elizabeth G Liles; Jennifer L Schneider; Jennifer E Lafata; Ronald E Myers; Michael Kositch; Thomas Hickey; Russell E Glasgow Journal: Med Care Date: 2010-07 Impact factor: 2.983
Authors: Barbara J Turner; Mark Weiner; Sheila D Berry; Karen Lillie; Kevin Fosnocht; Christopher S Hollenbeak Journal: J Gen Intern Med Date: 2007-11-21 Impact factor: 5.128
Authors: Helen Cole; Hayley S Thompson; Marilyn White; Ruth Browne; Chau Trinh-Shevrin; Scott Braithwaite; Kevin Fiscella; Carla Boutin-Foster; Joseph Ravenell Journal: Am J Public Health Date: 2017-07-20 Impact factor: 9.308
Authors: Heather L M Dacus; Victoria L Wagner; Elisè A Collins; Jacqueline M Matson; Margaret Gates; Sonja Hoover; Florence K L Tangka; Teri Larkins; Sujha Subramanian Journal: Cancer Date: 2018-10-25 Impact factor: 6.860