OBJECTIVE: To compare the effectiveness of two different pharmacy-based colorectal cancer screening (CRCS) interventions taking place during an annual influenza vaccination campaign. DESIGN: Time-randomized clinical trial. SETTING: San Francisco, CA, in late 2008. PARTICIPANTS: 133 adults aged 50 to 80 years visiting a pharmacy during an influenza vaccination campaign and also due for CRCS. INTERVENTION: On five dates, eligible patients were provided education and encouraged to obtain screening from their primary care clinician. On 17 dates, a home fecal immunochemical test (FIT) for CRCS was provided. A 16-item questionnaire was administered by phone 3 to 6 months after study enrollment. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: Self-reported CRCS activity, comparing CRCS completion rates for participants provided with the FIT versus those provided with education and encouragement to obtain screening from patients' primary care clinician. RESULTS:86 participants in the FIT arm and 28 the CRCS education arm were interviewed. Interviews revealed that 19.8% of the FIT group and 50% of the CRCS education group discussed CRCS with their primary care clinician (P = 0.002). Of these participants, 59.3% in the FIT arm and 14.8% in the CRCS education arm reported completing screening (P < 0.001). Of participants in the FIT group, 52.2% completed FIT dispensed to them by the investigators. Most participants in both groups reported interest in receiving CRCS education and home CRCS tests from pharmacists in the future. CONCLUSION: Pharmacy patients are receptive to CRCS interventions delivered in community pharmacies. Providing FIT to eligible patients during a pharmacy-based influenza vaccination campaign increases screening rates more than CRCS education alone.
RCT Entities:
OBJECTIVE: To compare the effectiveness of two different pharmacy-based colorectal cancer screening (CRCS) interventions taking place during an annual influenza vaccination campaign. DESIGN: Time-randomized clinical trial. SETTING: San Francisco, CA, in late 2008. PARTICIPANTS: 133 adults aged 50 to 80 years visiting a pharmacy during an influenza vaccination campaign and also due for CRCS. INTERVENTION: On five dates, eligible patients were provided education and encouraged to obtain screening from their primary care clinician. On 17 dates, a home fecal immunochemical test (FIT) for CRCS was provided. A 16-item questionnaire was administered by phone 3 to 6 months after study enrollment. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: Self-reported CRCS activity, comparing CRCS completion rates for participants provided with the FIT versus those provided with education and encouragement to obtain screening from patients' primary care clinician. RESULTS: 86 participants in the FIT arm and 28 the CRCS education arm were interviewed. Interviews revealed that 19.8% of the FIT group and 50% of the CRCS education group discussed CRCS with their primary care clinician (P = 0.002). Of these participants, 59.3% in the FIT arm and 14.8% in the CRCS education arm reported completing screening (P < 0.001). Of participants in the FIT group, 52.2% completed FIT dispensed to them by the investigators. Most participants in both groups reported interest in receiving CRCS education and home CRCS tests from pharmacists in the future. CONCLUSION: Pharmacy patients are receptive to CRCS interventions delivered in community pharmacies. Providing FIT to eligible patients during a pharmacy-based influenza vaccination campaign increases screening rates more than CRCS education alone.
Authors: Justine S Gortney; Sheila Seed; Nancy Borja-Hart; Veronica Young; Lisa J Woodard; Dolores Nobles-Knight; David M Scott; James D Nash Journal: Am J Pharm Educ Date: 2013-08-12 Impact factor: 2.047
Authors: Hisham A Badreldin; Khalid Bin Saleh; Aisha F Badr; Abdullah Alhifany; Shuroug A Alowais; Sumaya N Almohareb; Nada Alsuhebany; Abdulmajeed Alshehri; Mohammed Alzahrani; Anas Aldwsari; Ohoud Aljuhani; Ghazwa B Korayem; Khalid Al Sulaiman; Allulu Alturki; Hayfa Alhaidal; Yazeed Ghawaa Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2022-06-30 Impact factor: 4.614
Authors: Alison T Brenner; Jewels Rhode; Jeff Y Yang; Dana Baker; Rebecca Drechsel; Marcus Plescia; Daniel S Reuland; Tom Wroth; Stephanie B Wheeler Journal: Cancer Date: 2018-07-13 Impact factor: 6.860