BACKGROUND: Screening decreases colorectal cancer (CRC) incidence and mortality, yet almost half of age-eligible patients are not screened at recommended intervals. OBJECTIVE: To determine whether interventions using electronic health records (EHRs), automated mailings, and stepped increases in support improve CRC screening adherence over 2 years. DESIGN: 4-group, parallel-design, randomized, controlled comparative effectiveness trial with concealed allocation and blinded outcome assessments. (ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT00697047) SETTING: 21 primary care medical centers. PATIENTS: 4675 adults aged 50 to 73 years not current for CRC screening. INTERVENTION: Usual care, EHR-linked mailings ("automated"), automated plus telephone assistance ("assisted"), or automated and assisted plus nurse navigation to testing completion or refusal ("navigated"). Interventions were repeated in year 2. MEASUREMENTS: The proportion of participants current for screening in both years, defined as colonoscopy or sigmoidoscopy (year 1) or fecal occult blood testing (FOBT) in year 1 and FOBT, colonoscopy, or sigmoidoscopy (year 2). RESULTS: Compared with those in the usual care group, participants in the intervention groups were more likely to be current for CRC screening for both years with significant increases by intensity (usual care, 26.3% [95% CI, 23.4% to 29.2%]; automated, 50.8% [CI, 47.3% to 54.4%]; assisted, 57.5% [CI, 54.5% to 60.6%]; and navigated, 64.7% [CI, 62.5% to 67.0%]; P < 0.001 for all pair-wise comparisons). Increases in screening were primarily due to increased uptake of FOBT being completed in both years (usual care, 3.9% [CI, 2.8% to 5.1%]; automated, 27.5% [CI, 24.9% to 30.0%]; assisted, 30.5% [CI, 27.9% to 33.2%]; and navigated, 35.8% [CI, 33.1% to 38.6%]). LIMITATION: Participants were required to provide verbal consent and were more likely to be white and to participate in other types of cancer screening, limiting generalizability. CONCLUSION: Compared with usual care, a centralized, EHR-linked, mailed CRC screening program led to twice as many persons being current for screening over 2 years. Assisted and navigated interventions led to smaller but significant stepped increases compared with the automated intervention only. The rapid growth of EHRs provides opportunities for spreading this model broadly.
RCT Entities:
BACKGROUND: Screening decreases colorectal cancer (CRC) incidence and mortality, yet almost half of age-eligible patients are not screened at recommended intervals. OBJECTIVE: To determine whether interventions using electronic health records (EHRs), automated mailings, and stepped increases in support improve CRC screening adherence over 2 years. DESIGN: 4-group, parallel-design, randomized, controlled comparative effectiveness trial with concealed allocation and blinded outcome assessments. (ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT00697047) SETTING: 21 primary care medical centers. PATIENTS: 4675 adults aged 50 to 73 years not current for CRC screening. INTERVENTION: Usual care, EHR-linked mailings ("automated"), automated plus telephone assistance ("assisted"), or automated and assisted plus nurse navigation to testing completion or refusal ("navigated"). Interventions were repeated in year 2. MEASUREMENTS: The proportion of participants current for screening in both years, defined as colonoscopy or sigmoidoscopy (year 1) or fecal occult blood testing (FOBT) in year 1 and FOBT, colonoscopy, or sigmoidoscopy (year 2). RESULTS: Compared with those in the usual care group, participants in the intervention groups were more likely to be current for CRC screening for both years with significant increases by intensity (usual care, 26.3% [95% CI, 23.4% to 29.2%]; automated, 50.8% [CI, 47.3% to 54.4%]; assisted, 57.5% [CI, 54.5% to 60.6%]; and navigated, 64.7% [CI, 62.5% to 67.0%]; P < 0.001 for all pair-wise comparisons). Increases in screening were primarily due to increased uptake of FOBT being completed in both years (usual care, 3.9% [CI, 2.8% to 5.1%]; automated, 27.5% [CI, 24.9% to 30.0%]; assisted, 30.5% [CI, 27.9% to 33.2%]; and navigated, 35.8% [CI, 33.1% to 38.6%]). LIMITATION: Participants were required to provide verbal consent and were more likely to be white and to participate in other types of cancer screening, limiting generalizability. CONCLUSION: Compared with usual care, a centralized, EHR-linked, mailed CRC screening program led to twice as many persons being current for screening over 2 years. Assisted and navigated interventions led to smaller but significant stepped increases compared with the automated intervention only. The rapid growth of EHRs provides opportunities for spreading this model broadly.
Authors: David M Mosen; Adrianne C Feldstein; Nancy Perrin; A Gabriela Rosales; David H Smith; Elizabeth G Liles; Jennifer L Schneider; Jennifer E Lafata; Ronald E Myers; Michael Kositch; Thomas Hickey; Russell E Glasgow Journal: Med Care Date: 2010-07 Impact factor: 2.983
Authors: Beverly B Green; C Y Wang; Kathryn Horner; Sheryl Catz; Richard T Meenan; Sally W Vernon; David Carrell; Jessica Chubak; Cynthia Ko; Sharon Laing; Andy Bogart Journal: Contemp Clin Trials Date: 2010-07-30 Impact factor: 2.226
Authors: Richard M Hoffman; Susan R Steel; Ellen F T Yee; Larry Massie; Ronald M Schrader; Maurice L Moffett; Glen H Murata Journal: Am J Manag Care Date: 2011-01 Impact factor: 2.229
Authors: Judith M E Walsh; Rene Salazar; Tung T Nguyen; Celia Kaplan; Lam Kieu Nguyen; Jimmy Hwang; Stephen J McPhee; Rena J Pasick Journal: Am J Prev Med Date: 2010-07 Impact factor: 5.043
Authors: Nea Malila; Tiina Palva; Outi Malminiemi; Hannu Paimela; Ahti Anttila; Timo Hakulinen; Heikki Järvinen; Marja-Liisa Kotisaari; Pekka Pikkarainen; Matti Rautalahti; Risto Sankila; Harri Vertio; Matti Hakama Journal: J Med Screen Date: 2011 Impact factor: 2.136
Authors: Samir Gupta; Daniel A Sussman; Chyke A Doubeni; Daniel S Anderson; Lukejohn Day; Amar R Deshpande; B Joseph Elmunzer; Adeyinka O Laiyemo; Jeanette Mendez; Ma Somsouk; James Allison; Taft Bhuket; Zhuo Geng; Beverly B Green; Steven H Itzkowitz; Maria Elena Martinez Journal: J Natl Cancer Inst Date: 2014-03-28 Impact factor: 13.506
Authors: Gloria D Coronado; Jennifer L Schneider; Jennifer J Sanchez; Amanda F Petrik; Beverly Green Journal: Transl Behav Med Date: 2015-03 Impact factor: 3.046
Authors: Sarah L Cutrona; Joann Wagner; Douglas W Roblin; Bridget Gaglio; Andrew Williams; Rosalie Torres-Stone; Kathleen M Mazor Journal: J Health Commun Date: 2015-04-03
Authors: Ronald E Myers; Randa Sifri; Constantine Daskalakis; Melissa DiCarlo; Praveen Ramakrishnan Geethakumari; James Cocroft; Christopher Minnick; Nancy Brisbon; Sally W Vernon Journal: J Natl Cancer Inst Date: 2014-12-06 Impact factor: 13.506
Authors: Douglas J Robertson; Jeffrey K Lee; C Richard Boland; Jason A Dominitz; Francis M Giardiello; David A Johnson; Tonya Kaltenbach; David Lieberman; Theodore R Levin; Douglas K Rex Journal: Am J Gastroenterol Date: 2016-10-18 Impact factor: 10.864
Authors: Gloria D Coronado; William M Vollmer; Amanda Petrik; Stephen H Taplin; Timothy E Burdick; Richard T Meenan; Beverly B Green Journal: Contemp Clin Trials Date: 2014-06-14 Impact factor: 2.226
Authors: Caitlin C Murphy; Sally W Vernon; Nicole M Haddock; Melissa L Anderson; Jessica Chubak; Beverly B Green Journal: Prev Med Date: 2014-06-15 Impact factor: 4.018