Literature DB >> 19139323

Physicians encouraging colorectal screening: a randomized controlled trial of enhanced office and patient management on compliance with colorectal cancer screening.

Bruce S Ling1, Robert E Schoen, Jeanette M Trauth, Abdus S Wahed, Theresa Eury, Deborah M Simak, Francis X Solano, Joel L Weissfeld.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Colorectal cancer screening is underused. Our objective was to evaluate methods for promoting colorectal cancer screening in primary care practice.
METHODS: A 2 x 2 factorial randomized clinical trial measured the effects of a tailored vs nontailored physician recommendation letter and an enhanced vs nonenhanced physician office and patient management intervention on colorectal cancer screening adherence. The enhanced and nonenhanced physician office and patient management interventions varied the amount of external support to help physician offices develop and implement colorectal cancer screening programs. The study included 10 primary care physician office practices and 599 screen-eligible patients aged 50 to 79 years. The primary end point was medical-record-verified flexible sigmoidoscopy or colonoscopy. Statistical end-point analysis (according to randomization intent) used generalized estimating equations to account for correlated outcomes according to physician group.
RESULTS: During a 1-year period, endoscopy in the lower gastrointestinal tract (lower endoscopy) occurred in 289 of 599 patients (48.2%). This finding included the following rates of lower endoscopy: 81 of 152 patients (53.3%) in the group that received the tailored letter and enhanced management; 103 of 190 (54.2%) in the group that received the nontailored letter and enhanced management; 58 of 133 (43.6%) in the group that received the tailored letter and nonenhanced management; and 47 of 124 (37.9%) in the group that received the nontailored letter and nonenhanced management. Enhanced office and patient management increased the odds of completing a colonoscopy or flexible sigmoidoscopy by 1.63-fold (95% confidence interval, 1.11-2.41; P = .01). However, the tailored letter increased the odds of completion by only 1.08-fold (95% confidence interval, 0.72-1.62; P = .71).
CONCLUSIONS: Approximately one-half of the screen-eligible primary medical care patients aged 50 to 79 years obtained lower endoscopic colorectal cancer screening within 1 year of recommendation. An enhanced office and patient management system significantly improved colorectal cancer screening adherence. TRIAL REGISTRATION: clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT00327457.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2009        PMID: 19139323     DOI: 10.1001/archinternmed.2008.519

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Arch Intern Med        ISSN: 0003-9926


  34 in total

1.  A randomized controlled trial of a tailored interactive computer-delivered intervention to promote colorectal cancer screening: sometimes more is just the same.

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

2.  Preferences for colorectal cancer screening tests and screening test use in a large multispecialty primary care practice.

Authors:  Sarah T Hawley; Amy McQueen; L Kay Bartholomew; Anthony J Greisinger; Sharon P Coan; Ronald Myers; Sally W Vernon
Journal:  Cancer       Date:  2011-09-21       Impact factor: 6.860

Review 3.  Multilevel interventions: measurement and measures.

Authors:  Martin P Charns; Mary K Foster; Elaine C Alligood; Justin K Benzer; James F Burgess; Donna Li; Nathalie M McIntosh; Allison Burness; Melissa R Partin; Steven B Clauser
Journal:  J Natl Cancer Inst Monogr       Date:  2012-05

4.  A randomized trial comparing the effect of two phone-based interventions on colorectal cancer screening adherence.

Authors:  Usha Menon; Rhonda Belue; Stéphanie Wahab; Kathryn Rugen; Anita Y Kinney; Peter Maramaldi; Debra Wujcik; Laura A Szalacha
Journal:  Ann Behav Med       Date:  2011-12

Review 5.  Genetic architecture of colorectal cancer.

Authors:  Ulrike Peters; Stephanie Bien; Niha Zubair
Journal:  Gut       Date:  2015-07-17       Impact factor: 23.059

6.  A framework for evaluating the cost-effectiveness of patient decision aids: A case study using colorectal cancer screening.

Authors:  Scott B Cantor; Tanya Rajan; Suzanne K Linder; Robert J Volk
Journal:  Prev Med       Date:  2015-05-12       Impact factor: 4.018

7.  Patterns of colorectal cancer screening uptake in newly eligible men and women.

Authors:  Karen J Wernli; Rebecca A Hubbard; Eric Johnson; Jessica Chubak; Aruna Kamineni; Beverly B Green; Carolyn M Rutter
Journal:  Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev       Date:  2014-05-03       Impact factor: 4.254

8.  A Randomized Trial to Compare Alternative Educational Interventions to Increase Colorectal Cancer Screening in a Hard-to-Reach Urban Minority Population with Health Insurance.

Authors:  Charles E Basch; Patricia Zybert; Randi L Wolf; Corey H Basch; Ralph Ullman; Celia Shmukler; Fionnuala King; Alfred I Neugut; Steven Shea
Journal:  J Community Health       Date:  2015-10

9.  Physicians' colorectal cancer screening discussion and recommendation patterns.

Authors:  Jane M Zapka; Carrie N Klabunde; Neeraj K Arora; Gigi Yuan; Judith Lee Smith; Sarah C Kobrin
Journal:  Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev       Date:  2011-01-14       Impact factor: 4.254

10.  Public health and cooperative group partnership: a colorectal cancer intervention.

Authors:  Sherri G Homan; Bob R Steward; Jane M Armer
Journal:  Semin Oncol Nurs       Date:  2013-12-19       Impact factor: 2.315

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.