BACKGROUND: : Evidence-based interventions have been found effective in increasing colorectal cancer (CRC) screening. Translating these successful interventions into real world settings, such as health plans, can be challenging. METHODS: : CHOICE (Communicating Health Options through Information and Cancer Education) is a controlled trial to test the effectiveness of a patient- and practice-level intervention to increase use of recommended CRC screening tests. The patient-level intervention was a patient decision aid and stage-targeted brochures, mailed to eligible health plan members, to provide information about CRC, available screening tests, and how to obtain CRC screening at their physicians' practices. The practice-level intervention was academic detailing to prepare practices to facilitate CRC testing once the patient was activated by the decision aid. Surveys and claims data will be used to assess CRC screening test completion. RESULTS: : Thirty-two primary care practices in Florida and Georgia participated. The authors recruited 443 participating health plan members for the trial; 211 were patients in intervention practices, and 232 were in usual care practices. Study participants reflected an insured population; the majority were white and aged <60 years. The authors also mailed the intervention to 343 people from intervention practices who did not respond to the eligibility or baseline survey. Receipt of screening in that group will be compared with screening among 319 people from usual care practices who did not respond to these surveys using claims data. CONCLUSIONS: : The CHOICE study will demonstrate the effect of 2 combined evidence-based interventions on CRC screening test completion among health plan members. Cancer 2010. (c) 2010 American Cancer Society.
BACKGROUND: : Evidence-based interventions have been found effective in increasing colorectal cancer (CRC) screening. Translating these successful interventions into real world settings, such as health plans, can be challenging. METHODS: : CHOICE (Communicating Health Options through Information and Cancer Education) is a controlled trial to test the effectiveness of a patient- and practice-level intervention to increase use of recommended CRC screening tests. The patient-level intervention was a patient decision aid and stage-targeted brochures, mailed to eligible health plan members, to provide information about CRC, available screening tests, and how to obtain CRC screening at their physicians' practices. The practice-level intervention was academic detailing to prepare practices to facilitate CRC testing once the patient was activated by the decision aid. Surveys and claims data will be used to assess CRC screening test completion. RESULTS: : Thirty-two primary care practices in Florida and Georgia participated. The authors recruited 443 participating health plan members for the trial; 211 were patients in intervention practices, and 232 were in usual care practices. Study participants reflected an insured population; the majority were white and aged <60 years. The authors also mailed the intervention to 343 people from intervention practices who did not respond to the eligibility or baseline survey. Receipt of screening in that group will be compared with screening among 319 people from usual care practices who did not respond to these surveys using claims data. CONCLUSIONS: : The CHOICE study will demonstrate the effect of 2 combined evidence-based interventions on CRC screening test completion among health plan members. Cancer 2010. (c) 2010 American Cancer Society.
Authors: Michael G Goldstein; Raymond Niaura; Cynthia Willey; Alessandra Kazura; William Rakowski; Judith DePue; Elyse Park Journal: Prev Med Date: 2003-02 Impact factor: 4.018
Authors: David Siegel; Julio Lopez; Joy Meier; Mary K Goldstein; Samuel Lee; Bradley J Brazill; Mazen S Matalka Journal: Am J Hypertens Date: 2003-06 Impact factor: 2.689
Authors: Jean A Shapiro; Laura C Seeff; Trevor D Thompson; Marion R Nadel; Carrie N Klabunde; Sally W Vernon Journal: Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev Date: 2008-07 Impact factor: 4.254
Authors: Daniel E Jonas; Louise B Russell; Robert S Sandler; Jon Chou; Michael Pignone Journal: Med Decis Making Date: 2008 Jan-Feb Impact factor: 2.583
Authors: Jane Kim; Annie Whitney; Sarah Hayter; Carmen Lewis; Marci Campbell; Lisa Sutherland; Beth Fowler; Sue Googe; Regina McCoy; Michael Pignone Journal: BMC Med Inform Decis Mak Date: 2005-11-28 Impact factor: 2.796
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: Beverly B Green; Andy Bogart; Jessica Chubak; Sally W Vernon; Leo S Morales; Richard T Meenan; Sharon S Laing; Sharon Fuller; Cynthia Ko; Ching-Yun Wang Journal: Am J Prev Med Date: 2012-04 Impact factor: 5.043
Authors: Elizabeth M Yano; Lawrence W Green; Karen Glanz; John Z Ayanian; Brian S Mittman; Veronica Chollette; Lisa V Rubenstein Journal: J Natl Cancer Inst Monogr Date: 2012-05
Authors: Michael Pignone; Andrea Winquist; Laura A Schild; Carmen Lewis; Tracy Scott; Jonathan Hawley; Barbara K Rimer; Karen Glanz Journal: Cancer Date: 2011-02-11 Impact factor: 6.860
Authors: Usha Menon; Laura A Szalacha; Jennifer Kue; Patricia M Herman; Julie Bucho-Gonzalez; Peter Lance; Linda Larkey Journal: Ann Behav Med Date: 2020-04-20
Authors: Paul Aujoulat; Delphine Le Goff; Antoine Dany; Michel Robaskiewick; Jean Baptiste Nousbaum; Jeremy Derrienic; Mélanie Cariou; Morgane Guillou; Jean Yves Le Reste Journal: Trials Date: 2022-02-14 Impact factor: 2.279