PURPOSE: Distance from health care facilities can be a barrier to colorectal cancer (CRC) screening, especially for colonoscopy. Alternatively, an improved at-home stool-based screening tool, the fecal immunochemical test (FIT), requires only a single sample and has a better sensitivity-specificity balance compared to traditional guaiac fecal occult blood tests. Our objective was to determine if FITs mailed to asymptomatic, average-risk patients overdue for screening resulted in higher screening rates versus mailing educational materials alone or no intervention (ie, usual care). METHODS:Veterans ages 51-64, asymptomatic, at average risk for CRC, overdue for screening and in a veterans administration (VA) catchment area covering a large rural population were randomly assigned to 3 groups: (1) education only (Ed) group: mailed CRC educational materials and a survey of screening history and preferences (N = 499); (2) FIT group: mailed the FIT, plus educational materials and survey (N = 500); and (3) usual care (UC) group: received no mailings (N = 500). FINDINGS: At 6 months postintervention, 21% of the FIT group had received CRC screening by any method compared to 6% of the Ed group (and 6% of the UC group) (P < .0001). Of the 105 respondents from the FIT group, 71 (68%) were eligible to take the FIT. Of those, 64 (90%) completed the FIT and 8 (12%) tested positive. CONCLUSIONS: This low-intensity intervention of mailing FITs to average risk patients overdue for screening resulted in a significantly higher screening rate than educational materials alone or usual care, and may be of particular interest in rural areas.
RCT Entities:
PURPOSE: Distance from health care facilities can be a barrier to colorectal cancer (CRC) screening, especially for colonoscopy. Alternatively, an improved at-home stool-based screening tool, the fecal immunochemical test (FIT), requires only a single sample and has a better sensitivity-specificity balance compared to traditional guaiac fecal occult blood tests. Our objective was to determine if FITs mailed to asymptomatic, average-risk patients overdue for screening resulted in higher screening rates versus mailing educational materials alone or no intervention (ie, usual care). METHODS: Veterans ages 51-64, asymptomatic, at average risk for CRC, overdue for screening and in a veterans administration (VA) catchment area covering a large rural population were randomly assigned to 3 groups: (1) education only (Ed) group: mailed CRC educational materials and a survey of screening history and preferences (N = 499); (2) FIT group: mailed the FIT, plus educational materials and survey (N = 500); and (3) usual care (UC) group: received no mailings (N = 500). FINDINGS: At 6 months postintervention, 21% of the FIT group had received CRC screening by any method compared to 6% of the Ed group (and 6% of the UC group) (P < .0001). Of the 105 respondents from the FIT group, 71 (68%) were eligible to take the FIT. Of those, 64 (90%) completed the FIT and 8 (12%) tested positive. CONCLUSIONS: This low-intensity intervention of mailing FITs to average risk patients overdue for screening resulted in a significantly higher screening rate than educational materials alone or usual care, and may be of particular interest in rural areas.
Authors: S J Winawer; A G Zauber; M N Ho; M J O'Brien; L S Gottlieb; S S Sternberg; J D Waye; M Schapiro; J H Bond; J F Panish Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 1993-12-30 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Jennifer A Schlichting; Michelle A Mengeling; Nader M Makki; Ashish Malhotra; Thorvardur R Halfdanarson; J Stacey Klutts; Barcey T Levy; Peter J Kaboli; Mary E Charlton Journal: J Am Board Fam Med Date: 2015 Jul-Aug Impact factor: 2.657
Authors: Jennifer K Coury; Jennifer L Schneider; Beverly B Green; Laura-Mae Baldwin; Amanda F Petrik; Jennifer S Rivelli; Malaika R Schwartz; Gloria D Coronado Journal: Transl Behav Med Date: 2020-02-03 Impact factor: 3.046
Authors: Jan M Eberth; Michele J Josey; Lee R Mobley; Davidson O Nicholas; Donna B Jeffe; Cassie Odahowski; Janice C Probst; Mario Schootman Journal: J Rural Health Date: 2017-11-16 Impact factor: 4.333
Authors: Matthew A Goldshore; Shivan J Mehta; Woodrow Fletcher; George Tzanis; Chyke A Doubeni; E Carter Paulson Journal: Am J Prev Med Date: 2020-07 Impact factor: 5.043
Authors: Shivan J Mehta; Tanya Khan; Carmen Guerra; Catherine Reitz; Timothy McAuliffe; Kevin G Volpp; David A Asch; Chyke A Doubeni Journal: Am J Gastroenterol Date: 2018-12 Impact factor: 10.864
Authors: Michael K Dougherty; Alison T Brenner; Seth D Crockett; Shivani Gupta; Stephanie B Wheeler; Manny Coker-Schwimmer; Laura Cubillos; Teri Malo; Daniel S Reuland Journal: JAMA Intern Med Date: 2018-12-01 Impact factor: 21.873
Authors: Jennifer A Schlichting; Michelle A Mengeling; Nader M Makki; Ashish Malhotra; Thorvardur R Halfdanarson; J Stacey Klutts; Barcey T Levy; Peter J Kaboli; Mary E Charlton Journal: J Community Health Date: 2014-04
Authors: Alison T Brenner; Jewels Rhode; Jeff Y Yang; Dana Baker; Rebecca Drechsel; Marcus Plescia; Daniel S Reuland; Tom Wroth; Stephanie B Wheeler Journal: Cancer Date: 2018-07-13 Impact factor: 6.860
Authors: Shannon M Christy; Stacy N Davis; Kimberly R Williams; Xiuhua Zhao; Swapomthi K Govindaraju; Gwendolyn P Quinn; Susan T Vadaparampil; Hui-Yi Lin; Steven K Sutton; Richard R Roethzeim; David Shibata; Cathy D Meade; Clement K Gwede Journal: Cancer Date: 2016-07-15 Impact factor: 6.860