BACKGROUND:Rates of breast cancer (BC) and colorectal cancer (CRC) screening are particularly low among poor and minority patients. Multifaceted interventions have been shown to improve cancer-screening rates, yet the relative impact of the specific components of these interventions has not been assessed. Identifying the specific components necessary to improve cancer-screening rates is critical to tailor interventions in resource limited environments. OBJECTIVE: To assess the relative impact of various components of the reminder, recall, and outreach (RRO) model on BC and CRC screening rates within a safety net practice. DESIGN: Pragmatic randomized trial. PARTICIPANTS: Men and women aged 50-74 years past due for CRC screen and women aged 40-74 years past due for BC screening. INTERVENTIONS: We randomized 1,008 patients to one of four groups: (1) reminder letter; (2) letter and automated telephone message (Letter + Autodial); (3) letter, automated telephone message, and point of service prompt (Letter + Autodial + Prompt); or (4) letter and personal telephone call (Letter + Personal Call). MAIN MEASURES: Documentation of mammography or colorectal cancer screening at 52 weeks following randomization. KEY RESULTS: Compared to a reminder letter alone, Letter + Personal Call was more effective at improving screening rates for BC (17.8 % vs. 27.5 %; AOR 2.2, 95 % CI 1.2-4.0) and CRC screening (12.2 % vs. 21.5 %; AOR 2.0, 95 % CI 1.1-3.9). Compared to letter alone, a Letter + Autodial + Prompt was also more effective at improving rates of BC screening (17.8 % vs. 28.2 %; AOR 2.1, 95 % CI 1.1-3.7) and CRC screening (12.2 % vs. 19.6 %; AOR 1.9, 95 % CI 1.0-3.7). Letter + Autodial was not more effective than a letter alone at improving screening rates. CONCLUSIONS: The addition of a personal telephone call or a patient-specific provider prompt were both more effective at improving mammogram and CRC screening rates compared to a reminder letter alone. The use of automated telephone calls, however, did not provide any incremental benefit to a reminder letter alone.
RCT Entities:
BACKGROUND: Rates of breast cancer (BC) and colorectal cancer (CRC) screening are particularly low among poor and minority patients. Multifaceted interventions have been shown to improve cancer-screening rates, yet the relative impact of the specific components of these interventions has not been assessed. Identifying the specific components necessary to improve cancer-screening rates is critical to tailor interventions in resource limited environments. OBJECTIVE: To assess the relative impact of various components of the reminder, recall, and outreach (RRO) model on BC and CRC screening rates within a safety net practice. DESIGN: Pragmatic randomized trial. PARTICIPANTS: Men and women aged 50-74 years past due for CRC screen and women aged 40-74 years past due for BC screening. INTERVENTIONS: We randomized 1,008 patients to one of four groups: (1) reminder letter; (2) letter and automated telephone message (Letter + Autodial); (3) letter, automated telephone message, and point of service prompt (Letter + Autodial + Prompt); or (4) letter and personal telephone call (Letter + Personal Call). MAIN MEASURES: Documentation of mammography or colorectal cancer screening at 52 weeks following randomization. KEY RESULTS: Compared to a reminder letter alone, Letter + Personal Call was more effective at improving screening rates for BC (17.8 % vs. 27.5 %; AOR 2.2, 95 % CI 1.2-4.0) and CRC screening (12.2 % vs. 21.5 %; AOR 2.0, 95 % CI 1.1-3.9). Compared to letter alone, a Letter + Autodial + Prompt was also more effective at improving rates of BC screening (17.8 % vs. 28.2 %; AOR 2.1, 95 % CI 1.1-3.7) and CRC screening (12.2 % vs. 19.6 %; AOR 1.9, 95 % CI 1.0-3.7). Letter + Autodial was not more effective than a letter alone at improving screening rates. CONCLUSIONS: The addition of a personal telephone call or a patient-specific provider prompt were both more effective at improving mammogram and CRC screening rates compared to a reminder letter alone. The use of automated telephone calls, however, did not provide any incremental benefit to a reminder letter alone.
Authors: Robert M Saywell; Victoria L Champion; Celette Sugg Skinner; Usha Menon; Joanne Daggy Journal: J Womens Health (Larchmt) Date: 2004-10 Impact factor: 2.681
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: Bruce S Ling; Robert E Schoen; Jeanette M Trauth; Abdus S Wahed; Theresa Eury; Deborah M Simak; Francis X Solano; Joel L Weissfeld Journal: Arch Intern Med Date: 2009-01-12
Authors: Kishore Khankari; Mickey Eder; Chandra Y Osborn; Gregory Makoul; Marla Clayman; Silvia Skripkauskas; Linda Diamond-Shapiro; Dan Makundan; Michael S Wolf Journal: J Gen Intern Med Date: 2007-07-26 Impact factor: 5.128
Authors: Samantha Hendren; Paul Winters; Sharon Humiston; Amna Idris; Shirley X L Li; Patricia Ford; Raymond Specht; Stephen Marcus; Michael Mendoza; Kevin Fiscella Journal: J Gen Intern Med Date: 2013-07-02 Impact factor: 5.128
Authors: Adrianne C Feldstein; Nancy Perrin; A Gabriela Rosales; Jennifer Schneider; Mary M Rix; Kara Keels; Stephanie Schoap; Russell E Glasgow Journal: Am J Prev Med Date: 2009-08 Impact factor: 5.043
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: Terry C Davis; Connie L Arnold; Michael S Wolf; Charles L Bennett; Dachao Liu; Alfred Rademaker Journal: J Community Support Oncol Date: 2015-02
Authors: Connie L Arnold; Alfred W Rademaker; James D Morris; Laurie Anne Ferguson; Gary Wiltz; Terry C Davis Journal: Cancer Date: 2019-07-29 Impact factor: 6.860
Authors: Susan D Brandzel; Erin J Aiello Bowles; Arika Wieneke; Susan Carol Bradford; Kilian Kimbel; Hongyuan Gao; Diana Sm Buist Journal: Perm J Date: 2017
Authors: Gloria D Coronado; Shirley A A Beresford; Dale McLerran; Ricardo Jimenez; Donald L Patrick; India Ornelas; Sonia Bishop; John R Scheel; Beti Thompson Journal: Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev Date: 2016-04 Impact factor: 4.254