PURPOSE: An earlier randomized controlled trial of prevention care management (PCM) found significant improvement in breast, cervical, and colorectal cancer-screening rates among women attending Community Health Centers but required substantial research support. This study evaluated the impact of a streamlined PCM delivered through a Medicaid managed care organization (MMCO), an infrastructure with the potential to sustain this program for the long term. METHODS: This randomized trial was conducted within an MMCO serving New York City between May 2005 and December 2005. A total of 1,316 women aged 40 to 69 years and not up to date for at least 1 targeted cancer-screening test were randomized to either PCM or a comparison group. Women in the PCM group received up to 3 scripted telephone calls to identify barriers and provide support to obtain any needed breast, cervical, and colorectal cancer-screening tests. Women in the comparison group received a modified version of the MMCO's established mammography telephone outreach program, also in up to 3 calls. Women in both groups received a financial incentive on confirmation that they had received a mammogram. Screening status was assessed through MMCO administrative data. Groups were compared using odds ratios. RESULTS: In an intent-to-treat comparison adjusted for baseline screening status, PCM women were 1.69 times more likely to be up-to-date for colorectal cancer-screening tests at follow-up than women in the comparison group (95% confidence interval, 1.03-2.77). Follow-up screening rates for cervical and breast cancer did not differ significantly between study groups on an intent-to-treat basis. CONCLUSIONS: The abbreviated PCM telephone intervention was feasible to deliver through an MMCO and improved screening for 1 cancer. This approach has the potential to improve cancer-screening rates significantly in settings that can provide telephone support to women known to be overdue.
RCT Entities:
PURPOSE: An earlier randomized controlled trial of prevention care management (PCM) found significant improvement in breast, cervical, and colorectal cancer-screening rates among women attending Community Health Centers but required substantial research support. This study evaluated the impact of a streamlined PCM delivered through a Medicaid managed care organization (MMCO), an infrastructure with the potential to sustain this program for the long term. METHODS: This randomized trial was conducted within an MMCO serving New York City between May 2005 and December 2005. A total of 1,316 women aged 40 to 69 years and not up to date for at least 1 targeted cancer-screening test were randomized to either PCM or a comparison group. Women in the PCM group received up to 3 scripted telephone calls to identify barriers and provide support to obtain any needed breast, cervical, and colorectal cancer-screening tests. Women in the comparison group received a modified version of the MMCO's established mammography telephone outreach program, also in up to 3 calls. Women in both groups received a financial incentive on confirmation that they had received a mammogram. Screening status was assessed through MMCO administrative data. Groups were compared using odds ratios. RESULTS: In an intent-to-treat comparison adjusted for baseline screening status, PCM women were 1.69 times more likely to be up-to-date for colorectal cancer-screening tests at follow-up than women in the comparison group (95% confidence interval, 1.03-2.77). Follow-up screening rates for cervical and breast cancer did not differ significantly between study groups on an intent-to-treat basis. CONCLUSIONS: The abbreviated PCM telephone intervention was feasible to deliver through an MMCO and improved screening for 1 cancer. This approach has the potential to improve cancer-screening rates significantly in settings that can provide telephone support to women known to be overdue.
Authors: Benjamin F Crabtree; William L Miller; Alfred F Tallia; Deborah J Cohen; Barbara DiCicco-Bloom; Helen E McIlvain; Virginia A Aita; John G Scott; Patrice B Gregory; Kurt C Stange; Reuben R McDaniel Journal: Ann Fam Med Date: 2005 Sep-Oct Impact factor: 5.166
Authors: Richard G Roetzheim; Lisa K Christman; Paul B Jacobsen; Jennifer Schroeder; Rania Abdulla; Seft Hunter Journal: Ann Fam Med Date: 2005 Mar-Apr Impact factor: 5.166
Authors: Allen J Dietrich; Jonathan N Tobin; Andrea Cassells; Christina M Robinson; Mary Ann Greene; Carol Hill Sox; Michael L Beach; Katherine N DuHamel; Richard G Younge Journal: Ann Intern Med Date: 2006-04-18 Impact factor: 25.391
Authors: Allen J Dietrich; Jonathan N Tobin; Christina M Robinson; Andrea Cassells; Mary Ann Greene; Van H Dunn; Kimberly M Falkenstern; Rosanna De Leon; Michael L Beach Journal: Ann Fam Med Date: 2013 Jul-Aug Impact factor: 5.166
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
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: Terry C Davis; Alfred Rademaker; Charles L Bennett; Michael S Wolf; Edson Carias; Cristalyn Reynolds; Dachao Liu; Connie L Arnold Journal: J Gen Intern Med Date: 2013-12-24 Impact factor: 5.128
Authors: Terry Davis; Connie Arnold; Alfred Rademaker; Charles Bennett; Stacy Bailey; Daci Platt; Cristalyn Reynolds; Dachao Liu; Edson Carias; Pat Bass; Michael Wolf Journal: Cancer Date: 2013-08-20 Impact factor: 6.860
Authors: Jonathan S Slater; Michael J Parks; Christina L Nelson; Kelly D Hughes Journal: Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev Date: 2018-06-11 Impact factor: 4.254