PURPOSE: We wanted to determine whether providing home fecal occult blood test (FOBT) kits to eligible patients during influenza inoculation (flu shot) clinics can contribute to higher colorectal cancer screening (CRCS) rates. METHODS: The study was time randomized. On 8 dates of an annual flu shot clinic at the San Francisco General Hospital, patients were offered flu shots as usual (control group) and on 9 other dates, patients were offered both flu shots and FOBT kits (intervention group). RESULTS: The study included 514 patients aged 50 to 79 years, with 246 in the control group and 268 in the intervention group. At the conclusion of flu season, FOBT screening rates increased by 4.4 percentage points from 52.9% at baseline to 57.3% (P = .07) in the control group, and increased by 29.8 percentage points from 54.5% to 84.3% (P <.001) in the intervention group, with the change among intervention participants 25.4 percentage points greater than among control participants (P value for change difference <.001). Among patients initially due for CRCS, 20.7% in the control group and 68.0% in the intervention group were up-to-date at the conclusion of the study (P <.001). In multivariate analyses, the odds ratio for becoming up-to-date with screening in the intervention group (vs the control group) was 11.3 (95% CI, 5.8-22.0). CONCLUSIONS: Offering FOBT kits during flu shot clinics dramatically increased the CRCS rate for flu shot clinic attendees. Pairing home FOBT kits with annual flu shots may be a useful strategy to improve CRCS rates in other primary care or public health settings.
RCT Entities:
PURPOSE: We wanted to determine whether providing home fecal occult blood test (FOBT) kits to eligible patients during influenza inoculation (flu shot) clinics can contribute to higher colorectal cancer screening (CRCS) rates. METHODS: The study was time randomized. On 8 dates of an annual flu shot clinic at the San Francisco General Hospital, patients were offered flu shots as usual (control group) and on 9 other dates, patients were offered both flu shots and FOBT kits (intervention group). RESULTS: The study included 514 patients aged 50 to 79 years, with 246 in the control group and 268 in the intervention group. At the conclusion of flu season, FOBT screening rates increased by 4.4 percentage points from 52.9% at baseline to 57.3% (P = .07) in the control group, and increased by 29.8 percentage points from 54.5% to 84.3% (P <.001) in the intervention group, with the change among intervention participants 25.4 percentage points greater than among control participants (P value for change difference <.001). Among patients initially due for CRCS, 20.7% in the control group and 68.0% in the intervention group were up-to-date at the conclusion of the study (P <.001). In multivariate analyses, the odds ratio for becoming up-to-date with screening in the intervention group (vs the control group) was 11.3 (95% CI, 5.8-22.0). CONCLUSIONS: Offering FOBT kits during flu shot clinics dramatically increased the CRCS rate for flu shot clinic attendees. Pairing home FOBT kits with annual flu shots may be a useful strategy to improve CRCS rates in other primary care or public health settings.
Authors: Kimberly S H Yarnall; Kathryn I Pollak; Truls Østbye; Katrina M Krause; J Lloyd Michener Journal: Am J Public Health Date: 2003-04 Impact factor: 9.308
Authors: Timothy R Church; Mark W Yeazel; Resa M Jones; Laura K Kochevar; Gavin D Watt; Steven J Mongin; Jill E Cordes; Deborah Engelhard Journal: J Natl Cancer Inst Date: 2004-05-19 Impact factor: 13.506
Authors: Judith M E Walsh; Celia P Kaplan; Bang Nguyen; Ginny Gildengorin; Stephen J McPhee; Eliseo J Pérez-Stable Journal: J Gen Intern Med Date: 2004-02 Impact factor: 5.128
Authors: Truls Østbye; Kimberly S H Yarnall; Katrina M Krause; Kathryn I Pollak; Margaret Gradison; J Lloyd Michener Journal: Ann Fam Med Date: 2005 May-Jun Impact factor: 5.166
Authors: David Goldberg; Gordon D Schiff; Robert McNutt; Alice Furumoto-Dawson; Martha Hammerman; Arthur Hoffman Journal: Am J Prev Med Date: 2004-06 Impact factor: 5.043
Authors: Douglas Shenson; Mary Adams; Julie Bolen; Karen Wooten; Juliana Clough; Wayne H Giles; Lynda Anderson Journal: Am J Public Health Date: 2012-06-14 Impact factor: 9.308
Authors: Sheila F Castañeda; Balambal Bharti; Marielena Rojas; Silvia Mercado; Adriana M Bearse; Jasmine Camacho; Manuel Song Lopez; Fatima Muñoz; Shawne O'Connell; Lin Liu; Gregory A Talavera; Samir Gupta Journal: Am J Public Health Date: 2020-02-20 Impact factor: 9.308
Authors: Kathryn E Kemper; Becky L Glaze; Casey L Eastman; Roxane C Waldron; Sonja Hoover; T'Ronda Flagg; Florence K L Tangka; Sujha Subramanian Journal: Cancer Date: 2018-10-25 Impact factor: 6.860