Literature DB >> 23460053

An automated intervention with stepped increases in support to increase uptake of colorectal cancer screening: a randomized trial.

Beverly B Green1, Ching-Yun Wang, Melissa L Anderson, Jessica Chubak, Richard T Meenan, Sally W Vernon, Sharon Fuller.   

Abstract

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.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2013        PMID: 23460053      PMCID: PMC3953144          DOI: 10.7326/0003-4819-158-5-201303050-00002

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Ann Intern Med        ISSN: 0003-4819            Impact factor:   25.391


  63 in total

1.  Automated telephone calls improved completion of fecal occult blood testing.

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

2.  Cost-effectiveness of patient mailings to promote colorectal cancer screening.

Authors:  Thomas D Sequist; Calvin Franz; John Z Ayanian
Journal:  Med Care       Date:  2010-06       Impact factor: 2.983

3.  Effectiveness of a clinic-based colorectal cancer screening promotion program for underserved Hispanics.

Authors:  Gloria D Coronado; Ilya Golovaty; Gary Longton; Lisa Levy; Ricardo Jimenez
Journal:  Cancer       Date:  2010-11-08       Impact factor: 6.860

4.  Systems of support to increase colorectal cancer screening and follow-up rates (SOS): design, challenges, and baseline characteristics of trial participants.

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

5.  A system-based intervention to improve colorectal cancer screening uptake.

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

6.  A randomized controlled trial of a multilevel intervention to increase colorectal cancer screening among Latino immigrants in a primary care facility.

Authors:  Abraham Aragones; Mark D Schwartz; Nirav R Shah; Francesca M Gany
Journal:  J Gen Intern Med       Date:  2010-03-06       Impact factor: 5.128

7.  Healthy colon, healthy life: a novel colorectal cancer screening intervention.

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

8.  Coverage and performance of colorectal cancer screening with the faecal occult blood test in Finland.

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

9.  Colorectal cancer screening in primary care: translating research into practice.

Authors:  Steven Ornstein; Lynne S Nemeth; Ruth G Jenkins; Paul J Nietert
Journal:  Med Care       Date:  2010-10       Impact factor: 2.983

10.  A decision aid to support informed choices about bowel cancer screening among adults with low education: randomised controlled trial.

Authors:  Sian K Smith; Lyndal Trevena; Judy M Simpson; Alexandra Barratt; Don Nutbeam; Kirsten J McCaffery
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  2010-10-26
View more
  102 in total

Review 1.  Challenges and possible solutions to colorectal cancer screening for the underserved.

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

2.  Reasons for non-response to a direct-mailed FIT kit program: lessons learned from a pragmatic colorectal-cancer screening study in a federally sponsored health center.

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

3.  Uptake and positive predictive value of fecal occult blood tests: A randomized controlled trial.

Authors:  Jessica Chubak; Andy Bogart; Sharon Fuller; Sharon S Laing; Beverly B Green
Journal:  Prev Med       Date:  2013-09-09       Impact factor: 4.018

4.  E-mail to Promote Colorectal Cancer Screening Within Social Networks: Acceptability and Content.

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

5.  The effects of test preference, test access, and navigation on colorectal cancer screening.

Authors:  Constantine Daskalakis; Sally W Vernon; Randa Sifri; Melissa DiCarlo; James Cocroft; Jocelyn Andrel Sendecki; Ronald E Myers
Journal:  Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev       Date:  2014-05-09       Impact factor: 4.254

6.  Increasing colon cancer screening in primary care among African Americans.

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

Review 7.  Recommendations on Fecal Immunochemical Testing to Screen for Colorectal Neoplasia: A Consensus Statement by the US Multi-Society Task Force on Colorectal Cancer.

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

8.  Strategies and Opportunities to STOP Colon Cancer in Priority Populations: design of a cluster-randomized pragmatic trial.

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

9.  "BeneFITs" to increase colorectal cancer screening in priority populations.

Authors:  Beverly B Green; Gloria D Coronado
Journal:  JAMA Intern Med       Date:  2014-08       Impact factor: 21.873

10.  Longitudinal predictors of colorectal cancer screening among participants in a randomized controlled trial.

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

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.