PURPOSE: Colorectal cancer (CRC) screening remains underutilized in the United States. Prior studies reporting the cost effectiveness of randomized interventions to improve CRC screening have not been replicated in the setting of small physician practices. We recently conducted a randomized trial evaluating an academic detailing intervention in 264 small practices in geographically diverse New York City communities. The objective of this secondary analysis is to assess the cost effectiveness of this intervention. METHODS: A total of 264 physician offices were randomly assigned to usual care or to a series of visits from trained physician educators. CRC screening rates were measured at baseline and 12 months. The intervention costs were measured and the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) was derived. Sensitivity analyses were based on varying cost and effectiveness estimates. RESULTS: Academic detailing was associated with a 7% increase in CRC screening with colonoscopy. The total intervention cost was $147,865, and the ICER was $21,124 per percentage point increase in CRC screening rate. Sensitivity analyses that varied the costs of the intervention and the average medical practice size were associated with ICERs ranging from $13,631 to $36,109 per percentage point increase in CRC screening rates. CONCLUSION: A comprehensive, multicomponent academic detailing intervention conducted in small practices in metropolitan New York was clinically effective in improving CRC screening rates, but was not cost effective.
RCT Entities:
PURPOSE:Colorectal cancer (CRC) screening remains underutilized in the United States. Prior studies reporting the cost effectiveness of randomized interventions to improve CRC screening have not been replicated in the setting of small physician practices. We recently conducted a randomized trial evaluating an academic detailing intervention in 264 small practices in geographically diverse New York City communities. The objective of this secondary analysis is to assess the cost effectiveness of this intervention. METHODS: A total of 264 physician offices were randomly assigned to usual care or to a series of visits from trained physician educators. CRC screening rates were measured at baseline and 12 months. The intervention costs were measured and the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) was derived. Sensitivity analyses were based on varying cost and effectiveness estimates. RESULTS: Academic detailing was associated with a 7% increase in CRC screening with colonoscopy. The total intervention cost was $147,865, and the ICER was $21,124 per percentage point increase in CRC screening rate. Sensitivity analyses that varied the costs of the intervention and the average medical practice size were associated with ICERs ranging from $13,631 to $36,109 per percentage point increase in CRC screening rates. CONCLUSION: A comprehensive, multicomponent academic detailing intervention conducted in small practices in metropolitan New York was clinically effective in improving CRC screening rates, but was not cost effective.
Authors: Thomas D Denberg; Trisha V Melhado; John M Coombes; Brenda L Beaty; Kenneth Berman; Tim E Byers; Alfred C Marcus; John F Steiner; Dennis J Ahnen Journal: J Gen Intern Med Date: 2005-11 Impact factor: 5.128
Authors: Patricia A Ganz; Melissa M Farmer; Michael J Belman; Christine A Garcia; Leanne Streja; Allen J Dietrich; Charlotte Winchell; Roshan Bastani; Katherine L Kahn Journal: Cancer Date: 2005-11-15 Impact factor: 6.860
Authors: M Rosario Ferreira; Nancy C Dolan; Marian L Fitzgibbon; Terry C Davis; Nicolle Gorby; Lisa Ladewski; Dachao Liu; Alfred W Rademaker; Franklin Medio; Brian P Schmitt; Charles L Bennett Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2005-03-01 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Michael S Wolf; Karen A Fitzner; Eowyn F Powell; Kathryn R McCaffrey; A Simon Pickard; June M McKoy; Julia Lindenberg; Glen T Schumock; Kenneth R Carson; M Rosario Ferreira; Nancy C Dolan; Charles L Bennett Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2005-12-01 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Richard G Roetzheim; Lisa K Christman; Paul B Jacobsen; Alan B Cantor; Jennifer Schroeder; Rania Abdulla; Seft Hunter; Thomas N Chirikos; Jeffrey P Krischer Journal: Ann Fam Med Date: 2004 Jul-Aug Impact factor: 5.166
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
Authors: Richard T Meenan; Melissa L Anderson; Jessica Chubak; Sally W Vernon; Sharon Fuller; Ching-Yun Wang; Beverly B Green Journal: Am J Prev Med Date: 2015-06 Impact factor: 5.043
Authors: William J Curry; Eugene J Lengerich; Brenda C Kluhsman; Marie A Graybill; Jason Z Liao; Eric W Schaefer; Angela M Spleen; Mark B Dignan Journal: BMC Health Serv Res Date: 2011-05-23 Impact factor: 2.655
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: Giridhar Mohan; Sajal K Chattopadhyay; Donatus U Ekwueme; Susan A Sabatino; Devon L Okasako-Schmucker; Yinan Peng; Shawna L Mercer; Anilkrishna B Thota Journal: Am J Prev Med Date: 2019-08-30 Impact factor: 5.043
Authors: Beverly B Green; Ching-Yun Wang; Melissa L Anderson; Jessica Chubak; Richard T Meenan; Sally W Vernon; Sharon Fuller Journal: Ann Intern Med Date: 2013-03-05 Impact factor: 25.391
Authors: Alex H Krist; Beth A Glenn; Russell E Glasgow; Bijal A Balasubramanian; David A Chambers; Maria E Fernandez; Suzanne Heurtin-Roberts; Rodger Kessler; Marcia G Ory; Siobhan M Phillips; Debra P Ritzwoller; Dylan H Roby; Hector P Rodriguez; Roy T Sabo; Sherri N Sheinfeld Gorin; Kurt C Stange Journal: Implement Sci Date: 2013-06-25 Impact factor: 7.327
Authors: David R Lairson; Tong Han Chung; Danmeng Huang; Timothy E Stump; Patrick O Monahan; Shannon M Christy; Susan M Rawl; Victoria L Champion Journal: Cancer Prev Res (Phila) Date: 2020-01-22