Literature DB >> 20142572

Failure of automated telephone outreach with speech recognition to improve colorectal cancer screening: a randomized controlled trial.

Steven R Simon1, Fang Zhang, Stephen B Soumerai, Arthur Ensroth, Lydia Bernstein, Robert H Fletcher, Dennis Ross-Degnan.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Automated telephone outreach with speech recognition (ATO-SR) is used extensively by health plans. Whether ATO-SR can increase rates of colorectal cancer (CRC) screening is unknown.
METHODS: We randomly allocated 40 000 health plan members to ATO-SR and 40 000 to usual care, of whom 10 432 and 10 506 in the intervention and usual care groups, respectively, had not been previously screened and were therefore eligible for analysis. The intervention was a single interactive outreach call using speech recognition to engage participants in conversation about the importance of CRC screening and options for and barriers to screening. The intervention directed participants to contact their primary care provider to schedule screening. The primary end point was any CRC screening in the year following intervention. Colonoscopy in the year following intervention was a secondary outcome.
RESULTS: The incidence of any CRC screening was 30.6% in the intervention group and 30.4% in the usual care group (P = .76). After adjustment for available covariates, there remained no intervention effect (adjusted odds ratio [OR], 1.01; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.94-1.07). A total of 21.4% of members in the intervention group and 20.3% in the usual care group underwent colonoscopy (P = .04). In multivariate analysis, there was a small intervention effect on colonoscopy (OR, 1.08; 95% CI, 1.00-1.16).
CONCLUSIONS: This study showed that ATO-SR failed to improve rates of CRC screening. Future studies should examine approaches that combine efforts to target patients and their health care providers to overcome the barriers to CRC screening. Trial Registration clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT00792285.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2010        PMID: 20142572     DOI: 10.1001/archinternmed.2009.522

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


  15 in total

1.  Comparison of interactive voice response, patient mailing, and mailed registry to encourage screening for osteoporosis: a randomized controlled trial.

Authors:  L Heyworth; K Kleinman; S Oddleifson; L Bernstein; J Frampton; M Lehrer; K Salvato; T W Weiss; S R Simon; M Connelly
Journal:  Osteoporos Int       Date:  2014-02-25       Impact factor: 4.507

2.  Feasibility of a call-in centre to deliver colorectal cancer screening in primary care.

Authors:  Maida J Sewitch; Mengzhu Jiang; Roland Grad; Mark Yaffe; Alan Pavilanis; Lawrence Joseph; Alan N Barkun; Mark Roper
Journal:  Can Fam Physician       Date:  2013-12       Impact factor: 3.275

3.  Evaluation of Interventions Intended to Increase Colorectal Cancer Screening Rates in the United States: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.

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

Review 4.  Interventions to improve adherence to surveillance guidelines in survivors of childhood cancer: a systematic review.

Authors:  Veda Zabih; Alyssa Kahane; Natalya E O'Neill; Noah Ivers; Paul C Nathan
Journal:  J Cancer Surviv       Date:  2019-07-24       Impact factor: 4.442

5.  Effects of tailored knowledge enhancement on colorectal cancer screening preference across ethnic and language groups.

Authors:  Anthony Jerant; Richard L Kravitz; Kevin Fiscella; Nancy Sohler; Raquel Lozano Romero; Bennett Parnes; Sergio Aguilar-Gaxiola; Charles Turner; Simon Dvorak; Peter Franks
Journal:  Patient Educ Couns       Date:  2012-09-15

6.  Randomized, controlled trial of a multimodal intervention to improve cancer screening rates in a safety-net primary care practice.

Authors:  Samantha Hendren; Paul Winters; Sharon Humiston; Amna Idris; Shirley X L Li; Patricia Ford; Raymond Specht; Stephen Marcus; Michael Mendoza; Kevin Fiscella
Journal:  J Gen Intern Med       Date:  2013-07-02       Impact factor: 5.128

7.  An automated intervention with stepped increases in support to increase uptake of colorectal cancer screening: a randomized trial.

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

Review 8.  What implementation interventions increase cancer screening rates? a systematic review.

Authors:  Melissa C Brouwers; Carol De Vito; Lavannya Bahirathan; Angela Carol; June C Carroll; Michelle Cotterchio; Maureen Dobbins; Barbara Lent; Cheryl Levitt; Nancy Lewis; S Elizabeth McGregor; Lawrence Paszat; Carol Rand; Nadine Wathen
Journal:  Implement Sci       Date:  2011-09-29       Impact factor: 7.327

Review 9.  Effective interventions to facilitate the uptake of breast, cervical and colorectal cancer screening: an implementation guideline.

Authors:  Melissa C Brouwers; Carol De Vito; Lavannya Bahirathan; Angela Carol; June C Carroll; Michelle Cotterchio; Maureen Dobbins; Barbara Lent; Cheryl Levitt; Nancy Lewis; S Elizabeth McGregor; Lawrence Paszat; Carol Rand; Nadine Wathen
Journal:  Implement Sci       Date:  2011-09-29       Impact factor: 7.327

10.  Efficacy of an educational material on second primary cancer screening practice for cancer survivors: a randomized controlled trial.

Authors:  Dong Wook Shin; Juhee Cho; Young Woo Kim; Jae Hwan Oh; Seok Won Kim; Ki-Wook Chung; Woo-Yong Lee; Jeong Eon Lee; Eliseo Guallar; Won-Chul Lee
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2012-03-29       Impact factor: 3.240

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.