Thomas D Sequist1, Calvin Franz, John Z Ayanian. 1. Department of Health Care Policy, Harvard Medical School and Division of General Medicine and Primary Care, Brigham and Women's Hospital, 1620 Tremont Street, Boston, MA 02120, USA. tsequist@partners.org
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Programs to promote colorectal cancer screening are common, yet information regarding the cost-effectiveness of such efforts is limited. OBJECTIVE: To assess the cost-effectiveness of patient mailings to increase rates of colorectal cancer screening. RESEARCH DESIGN: Incremental cost-effectiveness analysis of a randomized, controlled trial. The intervention involved 21,860 patients aged 50 to 80 years across 11 health centers overdue for colorectal cancer screening. Patients were randomized to receive a mailing that included a tailored letter, educational brochure, and fecal occult blood test kit at baseline and 6 months follow-up. MEASURES: We calculated the incremental cost-effectiveness of these mailings to promote colorectal cancer screening by fecal occult blood testing, flexible sigmoidoscopy, or colonoscopy using internal cost estimates of labor and supplies. RESULTS:Colorectal cancer screening rates were higher for patients in the intervention compared with control patients (44% vs. 38%, P < 0.001). The total cost of the intervention was approximately $5.48 per patient, resulting in a cost-effectiveness ratio of $94 per additional patient screened. This estimate ranged from $69 to $156, based on assumptions of the cost of the intervention components, magnitude of intervention effect, age range, and size of the targeted patient population. CONCLUSION: Tailored patient mailings are a cost-effective approach to improve rates of colorectal cancer screening.
RCT Entities:
BACKGROUND: Programs to promote colorectal cancer screening are common, yet information regarding the cost-effectiveness of such efforts is limited. OBJECTIVE: To assess the cost-effectiveness of patient mailings to increase rates of colorectal cancer screening. RESEARCH DESIGN: Incremental cost-effectiveness analysis of a randomized, controlled trial. The intervention involved 21,860 patients aged 50 to 80 years across 11 health centers overdue for colorectal cancer screening. Patients were randomized to receive a mailing that included a tailored letter, educational brochure, and fecal occult blood test kit at baseline and 6 months follow-up. MEASURES: We calculated the incremental cost-effectiveness of these mailings to promote colorectal cancer screening by fecal occult blood testing, flexible sigmoidoscopy, or colonoscopy using internal cost estimates of labor and supplies. RESULTS:Colorectal cancer screening rates were higher for patients in the intervention compared with control patients (44% vs. 38%, P < 0.001). The total cost of the intervention was approximately $5.48 per patient, resulting in a cost-effectiveness ratio of $94 per additional patient screened. This estimate ranged from $69 to $156, based on assumptions of the cost of the intervention components, magnitude of intervention effect, age range, and size of the targeted patient population. CONCLUSION: Tailored patient mailings are a cost-effective approach to improve rates of colorectal cancer screening.
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: J D Hardcastle; J O Chamberlain; M H Robinson; S M Moss; S S Amar; T W Balfour; P D James; C M Mangham Journal: Lancet Date: 1996-11-30 Impact factor: 79.321
Authors: Ann C DeBourcy; Scott Lichtenberger; Susanne Felton; Kiel T Butterfield; Dennis J Ahnen; Thomas D Denberg Journal: J Gen Intern Med Date: 2007-12-21 Impact factor: 5.128
Authors: Ronald E Myers; Randa Sifri; Terry Hyslop; Michael Rosenthal; Sally W Vernon; James Cocroft; Thomas Wolf; Jocelyn Andrel; Richard Wender Journal: Cancer Date: 2007-11-01 Impact factor: 6.860
Authors: David R Lairson; Melissa DiCarlo; Ronald E Myers; Thomas Wolf; James Cocroft; Randa Sifri; Michael Rosenthal; Sally W Vernon; Richard Wender Journal: Cancer Date: 2008-02-15 Impact factor: 6.860
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: 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: Robert J Fortuna; Amna Idris; Paul Winters; Sharon G Humiston; Steven Scofield; Samantha Hendren; Patricia Ford; Shirley X L Li; Kevin Fiscella Journal: J Gen Intern Med Date: 2014-01 Impact factor: 5.128
Authors: Jessica McIntyre; Julio Jiménez; Yonaira M Rivera; Steven K Sutton; Gloria Asencio; Eida M Castro-Figueroa; Clement K Gwede; Thomas H Brandon; Susan T Vadaparampil; Vani N Simmons; Johanna Corchado; Laura Moreno; Kristen J Wells; Gwendolyn P Quinn Journal: J Cancer Educ Date: 2018-08 Impact factor: 2.037
Authors: Muriel Jean-Jacques; Erin O Kaleba; John L Gatta; Gabriela Gracia; Elizabeth R Ryan; Bechara N Choucair Journal: Ann Fam Med Date: 2012 Sep-Oct Impact factor: 5.166
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