OBJECTIVES: Among patients unlikely to attend a scheduled colonoscopy, we examined the impact of peer coach versus educational brochure support and compared these with concurrent patients who did not receive support. METHODS: From health system data, we identified 275 consecutive patients aged >50 who kept <75% of visits to 4 primary care practices and scheduled for a first colonoscopy from February 1, 2005 to August 31, 2006. Using block randomization, we assigned consenting patients to a phone call by a peer coach trained to address barriers to attendance or to a mailed colonoscopy brochure. Study data came from electronic medical records. Odds ratios of colonoscopy attendance were adjusted for demographic, clinical, and health care factors. RESULTS:Colonoscopy attendance by the peer coach group (N = 70) and brochure group (N = 66) differed by 11% (68.6% vs 57.6%, respectively). Compared with the brochure group, the peer coach group had over twofold greater adjusted odds ratio (AOR) of attendance (2.14, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.99-4.63) as did 49 patients who met the prespecified criteria for needing no support (2.68, 95% CI = 1.05-6.82) but the AORs did not differ significantly for 41 patients who declined support (0.61, 95% CI = 0.25-1.45) and 49 patients who could not be contacted (0.85, 95% CI = 0.36-2.02). Attendance was less likely for black versus white race (AOR = 0.37, 95% CI = 0.19-0.72) but more likely for patients with high versus low primary care visit adherence (AOR = 2.30, 95% CI = 1.04-5.07). CONCLUSION: For patients who often fail to keep appointments, peer coach support appears to promote colonoscopy attendance more than an educational brochure.
RCT Entities:
OBJECTIVES: Among patients unlikely to attend a scheduled colonoscopy, we examined the impact of peer coach versus educational brochure support and compared these with concurrent patients who did not receive support. METHODS: From health system data, we identified 275 consecutive patients aged >50 who kept <75% of visits to 4 primary care practices and scheduled for a first colonoscopy from February 1, 2005 to August 31, 2006. Using block randomization, we assigned consenting patients to a phone call by a peer coach trained to address barriers to attendance or to a mailed colonoscopy brochure. Study data came from electronic medical records. Odds ratios of colonoscopy attendance were adjusted for demographic, clinical, and health care factors. RESULTS: Colonoscopy attendance by the peer coach group (N = 70) and brochure group (N = 66) differed by 11% (68.6% vs 57.6%, respectively). Compared with the brochure group, the peer coach group had over twofold greater adjusted odds ratio (AOR) of attendance (2.14, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.99-4.63) as did 49 patients who met the prespecified criteria for needing no support (2.68, 95% CI = 1.05-6.82) but the AORs did not differ significantly for 41 patients who declined support (0.61, 95% CI = 0.25-1.45) and 49 patients who could not be contacted (0.85, 95% CI = 0.36-2.02). Attendance was less likely for black versus white race (AOR = 0.37, 95% CI = 0.19-0.72) but more likely for patients with high versus low primary care visit adherence (AOR = 2.30, 95% CI = 1.04-5.07). CONCLUSION: For patients who often fail to keep appointments, peer coach support appears to promote colonoscopy attendance more than an educational brochure.
Authors: Thomas D Denberg; John M Coombes; Tim E Byers; Alfred C Marcus; Lawrence E Feinberg; John F Steiner; Dennis J Ahnen Journal: Ann Intern Med Date: 2006-12-19 Impact factor: 25.391
Authors: Michael L Steinberg; Allen Fremont; David C Khan; David Huang; Herschel Knapp; Deborah Karaman; Nell Forge; Keith Andre; Lisa M Chaiken; Oscar E Streeter Journal: Cancer Date: 2006-12-01 Impact factor: 6.860
Authors: Laura C Seeff; Marion R Nadel; Carrie N Klabunde; Trevor Thompson; Jean A Shapiro; Sally W Vernon; Ralph J Coates Journal: Cancer Date: 2004-05-15 Impact factor: 6.860
Authors: Jane Wardle; Sara Williamson; Kirsten McCaffery; Stephen Sutton; Tamara Taylor; Robert Edwards; Wendy Atkin Journal: Health Psychol Date: 2003-01 Impact factor: 4.267
Authors: Michael Greenspan; Navdeep Chehl; Krista Shawron; Lisa Barnes; Hong Li; Elizabeth Avery; Shannon Sims; John Losurdo; Sohrab Mobarhan; Joshua Melson Journal: Dig Dis Sci Date: 2015-04-23 Impact factor: 3.199
Authors: Daniel M Blumenthal; Gaurav Singal; Shikha S Mangla; Eric A Macklin; Daniel C Chung Journal: J Gen Intern Med Date: 2015-01-14 Impact factor: 5.128
Authors: Adeyinka O Laiyemo; John Kwagyan; Carla D Williams; Jessica Rogers; Angesom Kibreab; Momodu A Jack; Edward E Lee; Hassan Brim; Hassan Ashktorab; Charles D Howell; Duane T Smoot; Elizabeth A Platz Journal: Am J Gastroenterol Date: 2019-10 Impact factor: 10.864
Authors: Danielle S Jackson; Nneka Egbuonnu; Chukwuma Umunakwe; Terrence M Fullum; Debra H Ford; Kyle B Anders; Shelly McDonald-Pinkett; Duane T Smoot; Adeyinka O Laiyemo Journal: Am J Med Sci Date: 2012-09 Impact factor: 2.378
Authors: Watcharaporn Pengchit; Scott T Walters; Rebecca G Simmons; Wendy Kohlmann; Randall W Burt; Marc D Schwartz; Anita Y Kinney Journal: J Health Psychol Date: 2011-04-04
Authors: Lina Jandorf; Julia L Cooperman; Lauren M Stossel; Steven Itzkowitz; Hayley S Thompson; Cristina Villagra; Linda D Thélémaque; Thomas McGinn; Gary Winkel; Heiddis Valdimarsdottir; Rachel C Shelton; William Redd Journal: Health Educ Res Date: 2013-02-07