Terry C Davis1, Connie L Arnold, Charles L Bennett, Michael S Wolf, Cristalyn Reynolds, Dachao Liu, Alfred Rademaker. 1. Authors' Affiliations: Department of Medicine, Louisiana State University Health Sciences Center, Shreveport, Louisiana; South Carolina College of Pharmacy, the Hollings Cancer Center of the Medical University of South Carolina, the Arnold School of Public Health, and the William Jennings Bryan Veterans Administration Medical Center, Charleston and Columbia, South Carolina; Division of General Internal Medicine & Geriatrics; and Department of Preventive Medicine and the Robert H. Lurie Comprehensive Cancer Center, Northwestern University, Chicago, Illinois.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: A comparative effectiveness intervention by this team improved initial fecal occult blood testing (FOBT) rates from 3% to 53% among community clinic patients. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the effectiveness and costs associated with a literacy-informed intervention on repeat FOBT testing. METHODS: Between 2008 and 2011, a three-arm quasi-experiential comparative effectiveness evaluation was conducted in eight community clinics in Louisiana. Clinics were randomly assigned to receive: enhanced care, a screening recommendation, and FOBT kit annually; a brief educational intervention where patients additionally received a literacy appropriate pamphlet and simplified FOBT instructions; or nurse support where a nurse manager provided the education and followed up with phone support. In year 2, all materials were mailed. The study consisted of 461 patients, ages 50 to 85 years, with a negative initial FOBT. RESULTS:Repeat FOBT rates were 38% enhanced care, 33% education, and 59% with nurse support (P = 0.017). After adjusting for age, race, gender, and literacy, patients receiving nurse support were 1.46 times more likely to complete repeat FOBT screening than those receiving education [95% confidence interval (CI), 1.14-1.06; P = 0.002] and 1.45 times more likely than those in enhanced care but this was not significant (95% CI, 0.93-2.26; P = 0.10). The incremental cost per additional person screened was $2,450 for nurse over enhanced care. CONCLUSION: A mailed pamphlet and FOBT with simplified instructions did not improve annual screening. IMPACT: Telephone outreach by a nurse manager was effective in improving rates of repeat FOBT, yet this may be too costly for community clinics.
RCT Entities:
BACKGROUND: A comparative effectiveness intervention by this team improved initial fecal occult blood testing (FOBT) rates from 3% to 53% among community clinic patients. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the effectiveness and costs associated with a literacy-informed intervention on repeat FOBT testing. METHODS: Between 2008 and 2011, a three-arm quasi-experiential comparative effectiveness evaluation was conducted in eight community clinics in Louisiana. Clinics were randomly assigned to receive: enhanced care, a screening recommendation, and FOBT kit annually; a brief educational intervention where patients additionally received a literacy appropriate pamphlet and simplified FOBT instructions; or nurse support where a nurse manager provided the education and followed up with phone support. In year 2, all materials were mailed. The study consisted of 461 patients, ages 50 to 85 years, with a negative initial FOBT. RESULTS: Repeat FOBT rates were 38% enhanced care, 33% education, and 59% with nurse support (P = 0.017). After adjusting for age, race, gender, and literacy, patients receiving nurse support were 1.46 times more likely to complete repeat FOBT screening than those receiving education [95% confidence interval (CI), 1.14-1.06; P = 0.002] and 1.45 times more likely than those in enhanced care but this was not significant (95% CI, 0.93-2.26; P = 0.10). The incremental cost per additional person screened was $2,450 for nurse over enhanced care. CONCLUSION: A mailed pamphlet and FOBT with simplified instructions did not improve annual screening. IMPACT: Telephone outreach by a nurse manager was effective in improving rates of repeat FOBT, yet this may be too costly for community clinics.
Authors: Russell E Glasgow; V Paul Doria-Rose; Muin J Khoury; Mohammed Elzarrad; Martin L Brown; Kurt C Stange Journal: J Natl Cancer Inst Date: 2013-04-11 Impact factor: 13.506
Authors: Stephen H Taplin; David Haggstrom; Tracy Jacobs; Ada Determan; Jennifer Granger; Wanda Montalvo; William M Snyder; Susan Lockhart; Ahmed Calvo Journal: Med Care Date: 2008-09 Impact factor: 2.983
Authors: Jeffrey K Lee; Veronica Reis; Shanglei Liu; Lorraine Conn; Erik J Groessl; Theodore G Ganiats; Samuel B Ho Journal: J Gen Intern Med Date: 2009-09-23 Impact factor: 5.128
Authors: Shira N Goldman; David T Liss; Tiffany Brown; Ji Young Lee; David R Buchanan; Kate Balsley; Ana Cesan; Jordan Weil; Bridget H Garrity; David W Baker Journal: J Gen Intern Med Date: 2015-03-27 Impact factor: 5.128
Authors: Richard T Meenan; Melissa L Anderson; Jessica Chubak; Sally W Vernon; Sharon Fuller; Ching-Yun Wang; Beverly B Green Journal: Am J Prev Med Date: 2015-06 Impact factor: 5.043
Authors: B A Mahal; M-H Chen; C L Bennett; M W Kattan; O Sartor; K Stein; A V D'Amico; P L Nguyen Journal: Ann Oncol Date: 2015-04-28 Impact factor: 32.976
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: Stacy N Davis; Shannon M Christy; Enmanuel A Chavarria; Rania Abdulla; Steven K Sutton; Alyssa R Schmidt; Susan T Vadaparampil; Gwendolyn P Quinn; Vani N Simmons; Chukwudi B Ufondu; Chitra Ravindra; Ida Schultz; Richard G Roetzheim; David Shibata; Cathy D Meade; Clement K Gwede Journal: Cancer Date: 2016-12-01 Impact factor: 6.860
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: Giridhar Mohan; Sajal K Chattopadhyay; Donatus U Ekwueme; Susan A Sabatino; Devon L Okasako-Schmucker; Yinan Peng; Shawna L Mercer; Anilkrishna B Thota Journal: Am J Prev Med Date: 2019-08-30 Impact factor: 5.043
Authors: Carrie M Nielson; William M Vollmer; Amanda F Petrik; Erin M Keast; Beverly B Green; Gloria D Coronado Journal: J Gen Intern Med Date: 2019-01-25 Impact factor: 5.128