OBJECTIVE: Colorectal cancer (CRC) screening is underutilized. Effective and efficient interventions are needed to increase its utilization in primary care. METHODS: We used UNC Internal Medicine electronic medical records to perform 2 effectiveness trials. Eligible patients had no documentation of recent CRC screening and were aged 50-75 years. The mailed intervention contained a letter documenting the need for screening signed by the attending physician in wave A and the practice director in wave B, a postcard to request a decision aid about CRC screening options, and information about how to obtain screening. RESULT: Three-hundred and forty patients of attending physicians in wave A, 944 patients of resident physicians in wave B, and 214 patients of attending physicians in wave B were included. The intervention increased screening compared with controls for attending physicians' patients in wave A (13.1% vs. 4.1%, 95% CI, 3.1%-14.9%) but not for resident physicians' patients in wave B (1.3% vs. 1.9%, 95% CI, -2.2% to 1.0%). A small increase in screening with the intervention was seen in attending physicians' patients in wave B (6.9% vs. 2.4%, 95% CI, -1.4% to 10.5%). Requests for decision aids were uncommon in both waves (12.5% wave A and 7.8% wave B). LIMITATIONS: The group assignments were not individually randomized, and covariate information to explain the differences in effect was limited. CONCLUSIONS: The intervention increased CRC screening in attending physicians' patients who received a letter from their physicians, but not resident physicians' patients who received a letter signed by the practice director.
OBJECTIVE:Colorectal cancer (CRC) screening is underutilized. Effective and efficient interventions are needed to increase its utilization in primary care. METHODS: We used UNC Internal Medicine electronic medical records to perform 2 effectiveness trials. Eligible patients had no documentation of recent CRC screening and were aged 50-75 years. The mailed intervention contained a letter documenting the need for screening signed by the attending physician in wave A and the practice director in wave B, a postcard to request a decision aid about CRC screening options, and information about how to obtain screening. RESULT: Three-hundred and forty patients of attending physicians in wave A, 944 patients of resident physicians in wave B, and 214 patients of attending physicians in wave B were included. The intervention increased screening compared with controls for attending physicians' patients in wave A (13.1% vs. 4.1%, 95% CI, 3.1%-14.9%) but not for resident physicians' patients in wave B (1.3% vs. 1.9%, 95% CI, -2.2% to 1.0%). A small increase in screening with the intervention was seen in attending physicians' patients in wave B (6.9% vs. 2.4%, 95% CI, -1.4% to 10.5%). Requests for decision aids were uncommon in both waves (12.5% wave A and 7.8% wave B). LIMITATIONS: The group assignments were not individually randomized, and covariate information to explain the differences in effect was limited. CONCLUSIONS: The intervention increased CRC screening in attending physicians' patients who received a letter from their physicians, but not resident physicians' patients who received a letter signed by the practice director.
Authors: Thomas D Denberg; John M Coombes; Tim E Byers; Alfred C Marcus; Lawrence E Feinberg; John F Steiner; Dennis J Ahnen Journal: Ann Intern Med Date: 2006-12-19 Impact factor: 25.391
Authors: Erin G Stone; Sally C Morton; Marlies E Hulscher; Margaret A Maglione; Elizabeth A Roth; Jeremy M Grimshaw; Brian S Mittman; Lisa V Rubenstein; Laurence Z Rubenstein; Paul G Shekelle Journal: Ann Intern Med Date: 2002-05-07 Impact factor: 25.391
Authors: Judith M E Walsh; René Salazar; Jonathan P Terdiman; Ginny Gildengorin; Eliseo J Pérez-Stable Journal: J Gen Intern Med Date: 2005-12 Impact factor: 5.128
Authors: Allen J Dietrich; Jonathan N Tobin; Andrea Cassells; Christina M Robinson; Mary Ann Greene; Carol Hill Sox; Michael L Beach; Katherine N DuHamel; Richard G Younge Journal: Ann Intern Med Date: 2006-04-18 Impact factor: 25.391
Authors: Veena Shankaran; June M McKoy; Neal Dandade; Narissa Nonzee; Cara A Tigue; Charles L Bennett; Tom D Denberg Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2007-11-20 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Channing E Tate; Daniel D Matlock; Alexandra F Dalton; Lisa M Schilling; Alexandra Marcus; Tiffany Schommer; Corey Lyon; Carmen L Lewis Journal: Jt Comm J Qual Patient Saf Date: 2018-04-25
Authors: Daniel S Reuland; Alison T Brenner; Richard Hoffman; Andrew McWilliams; Robert L Rhyne; Christina Getrich; Hazel Tapp; Mark A Weaver; Danelle Callan; Laura Cubillos; Brisa Urquieta de Hernandez; Michael P Pignone Journal: JAMA Intern Med Date: 2017-07-01 Impact factor: 21.873
Authors: Matthew DeCamp; Daniel Pomerantz; Kamala Cotts; Elizabeth Dzeng; Neil Farber; Lisa Lehmann; P Preston Reynolds; Lois Snyder Sulmasy; Jon Tilburt Journal: J Gen Intern Med Date: 2017-12-18 Impact factor: 5.128
Authors: Kristen Hassmiller Lich; David A Cornejo; Maria E Mayorga; Michael Pignone; Florence K L Tangka; Lisa C Richardson; Tzy-Mey Kuo; Anne-Marie Meyer; Ingrid J Hall; Judith Lee Smith; Todd A Durham; Steven A Chall; Trisha M Crutchfield; Stephanie B Wheeler Journal: Prev Chronic Dis Date: 2017-02-23 Impact factor: 2.830
Authors: Carmen L Lewis; Alexandra F Dalton; Lauren Drake; Alison T Brenner; Cristin M Colford; Chris DeLeon; Shaun McDonald; Carolyn B Morris; Matthew Waters; Lisa Werner; Arlene Chung Journal: MDM Policy Pract Date: 2016-07-07