Literature DB >> 24336560

Feasibility of a call-in centre to deliver colorectal cancer screening in primary care.

Maida J Sewitch1, Mengzhu Jiang, Roland Grad, Mark Yaffe, Alan Pavilanis, Lawrence Joseph, Alan N Barkun, Mark Roper.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the feasibility of a call-in centre to deliver colorectal cancer (CRC) screening in primary care through self-administered fecal occult blood testing (FOBT).
DESIGN: Four-month intervention study (September 2010 to January 2011) with randomly selected follow-up interviews.
SETTING: The family medicine clinics of 3 hospitals in Montreal, Que. PARTICIPANTS: Letters from doctors invited their patients to contact the call-in centre (N = 761). Eligible patients agreeing to FOBT were sent testing kits that could be returned by mail (N = 100). Randomly selected patients (N = 36) were interviewed to explore the reasons why they did not contact the call-in centre, or why they did or did not adhere to FOBT. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Feasibility was assessed by the proportions of patients who contacted the call-in centre, who were eligible for FOBT, and who adhered to FOBT; and by the time between invitation mail-out and contact with the call-in centre, initial telephone contact and receipt of the signed consent form, and FOBT kit mail-out and receipt of the kit by the laboratory. Hierarchical logistic regression evaluated the effect of patient characteristics on feasibility indicators, adjusting for clustering by physician and centre.
RESULTS: Of 761 patients (61.6% female, mean age 61.0 years), 250 (32.9%) contacted the call-in centre, of whom 100 (40.0%) were eligible for and consented to FOBT; 62 (62.0%) of these patients adhered to FOBT. Median (interquartile range) time from invitation mail-out to call-in centre contact was 21 (7 to 29) days, from initial telephone contact to receipt of the signed consent form was 24 (10 to 38) days, and from FOBT kit mail-out to receipt at the laboratory was 23 (18 to 32) days. With the exception of previous cancer diagnosis, patient characteristics were not associated with feasibility indicators. Of the 115 (46.0%) patients determined to be ineligible for FOBT screening, 111 (96.5%) were up to date with or already scheduled for screening.
CONCLUSION: Feasibility of the call-in centre was demonstrated. Targeting screening-eligible individuals or coupling a call-in service with another evidence-based CRC screening improvement strategy might further improve uptake of fecal testing.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2013        PMID: 24336560      PMCID: PMC3860945     

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Can Fam Physician        ISSN: 0008-350X            Impact factor:   3.275


  30 in total

1.  Relatives of colorectal cancer patients: factors associated with screening behavior.

Authors:  Lisa Madlensky; Mary Jane Esplen; Steven Gallinger; John R McLaughlin; Vivek Goel
Journal:  Am J Prev Med       Date:  2003-10       Impact factor: 5.043

Review 2.  Occult blood screening. Obstacles to effectiveness.

Authors:  D A Ahlquist
Journal:  Cancer       Date:  1992-09-01       Impact factor: 6.860

3.  Cost-effectiveness of computerized tomographic colonography versus colonoscopy for colorectal cancer screening.

Authors:  Steven J Heitman; Braden J Manns; Robert J Hilsden; Andrew Fong; Stafford Dean; Joseph Romagnuolo
Journal:  CMAJ       Date:  2005-10-11       Impact factor: 8.262

4.  The efficacy of tailored print materials in promoting colorectal cancer screening: results from a randomized trial involving callers to the National Cancer Institute's Cancer Information Service.

Authors:  Alfred C Marcus; Mondi Mason; Pam Wolfe; Barbara K Rimer; Isaac Lipkus; Victor Strecher; Richard Warneke; Marion E Morra; Amy Reasinger Allen; Sharon W Davis; Amy Gaier; Carlan Graves; Karen Julesberg; Lynne Nguyen; Rosemarie Perocchia; Jo Beth Speyer; Doug Wagner; Chris Thomsen; Mary Anne Bright
Journal:  J Health Commun       Date:  2005

5.  Canadian guidelines for colorectal cancer screening.

Authors:  Jennifer J Telford
Journal:  Can J Gastroenterol       Date:  2011-09       Impact factor: 3.522

6.  Understanding intention to undergo colonoscopy among intermediate-risk siblings of colorectal cancer patients: a test of a mediational model.

Authors:  Sharon Manne; Arnold Markowitz; Sidney Winawer; Jose Guillem; Neal J Meropol; Daniel Haller; Lina Jandorf; William Rakowski; James Babb; Terry Duncan
Journal:  Prev Med       Date:  2003-01       Impact factor: 4.018

7.  Randomized controlled trial of the impact of intensive patient education on compliance with fecal occult blood testing.

Authors:  Charlene L Stokamer; Craig T Tenner; Jhuma Chaudhuri; Eva Vazquez; Edmund J Bini
Journal:  J Gen Intern Med       Date:  2005-03       Impact factor: 5.128

8.  Implanting telehealth network for paediatric cardiology: learning from the Quebec experience.

Authors:  Marc Bellavance; Marie J Béland; Nicolaas H van Doesburg; Marc Paquet; Francine M Ducharme; Alain Cloutier
Journal:  Cardiol Young       Date:  2004-12       Impact factor: 1.093

9.  Predictors of stage of adoption for colorectal cancer screening.

Authors:  G A Brenes; E D Paskett
Journal:  Prev Med       Date:  2000-10       Impact factor: 4.018

10.  Telephone care management to improve cancer screening among low-income women: a randomized, controlled trial.

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

View more
  1 in total

1.  Healthcare utilization of breast cancer patients following telephone-based consultations of oncology nurse navigator via telemedical care.

Authors:  Gila Adler; Galit Kaufman; Tzahit Simon-Tuval
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2019-05-02       Impact factor: 3.240

  1 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.