Literature DB >> 25567822

Improving breast and colon cancer screening rates: a comparison of letters, automated phone calls, or both.

Lindsay Phillips1, Samantha Hendren1, Sharon Humiston1, Paul Winters1, Kevin Fiscella2.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: Low-cost interventions to improve cancer screening among primary care patients are needed. The comparative effectiveness of personalized letters, automated telephone calls, and both on breast cancer (BC) and colorectal cancer (CRC) screening is not known.
METHODS: A pragmatic, randomized, controlled trial was conducted in 2011 to 2012. Eligible primary care patients were women ages 50 to 74 years who were past due for mammography and men or women who were past due for mammography or CRC screening of any kind (>12 months since last fecal occult blood test, >5 years since last sigmoidoscopy/double-contrast barium enema, or >10 years since last colonoscopy), respectively. Participants were randomized to 1 of 3 interventions: personalized mailed letters, automated telephone calls, or both. The primary outcome was medical record documentation of a completed mammogram or CRC screening within 36 weeks of randomization. We estimated the costs of each intervention and calculated the marginal cost-effectiveness per person screened.
RESULTS: The crude screening rates for BC were 19%, 22%, and 37% and for CRC were 17%, 14%, and 24% for the letter, automated call, and combined (letter/automated call) groups, respectively. The combined intervention group had a statistically higher screening rate (P < .05) compared with either of the single intervention groups (letter only or automated call) for both BC and CRC in both the crude and adjusted analyses. The combined intervention costs $5.11 per additional person screened for BC and $13.14 per additional person screened for CRC.
CONCLUSION: In a primary care practice, letters plus automated telephone calls are better than either alone in increasing cancer screening rates among patients who are overdue for screening. These findings suggest the promise of a relatively inexpensive intervention to improve cancer screening. © Copyright 2015 by the American Board of Family Medicine.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Cancer Screening; Colorectal Cancer; Mammography

Mesh:

Year:  2015        PMID: 25567822     DOI: 10.3122/jabfm.2015.01.140174

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Am Board Fam Med        ISSN: 1557-2625            Impact factor:   2.657


  20 in total

1.  Endoscopist Specialty Predicts the Likelihood of Recommending Cessation of Colorectal Cancer Screening in Older Adults.

Authors:  Audrey H Calderwood; Joseph C Anderson; Christina M Robinson; Lynn F Butterly
Journal:  Am J Gastroenterol       Date:  2018-11-02       Impact factor: 10.864

2.  Factors associated with patient no-show rates in an academic otolaryngology practice.

Authors:  Caitlin E Fiorillo; Allyson L Hughes; Chen I-Chen; Philip M Westgate; Thomas J Gal; Matthew L Bush; Brett T Comer
Journal:  Laryngoscope       Date:  2017-08-16       Impact factor: 3.325

3.  Breast cancer screening outreach effectiveness: Mammogram-specific reminders vs. comprehensive preventive services birthday letters.

Authors:  Diana S M Buist; Hongyuan Gao; Melissa L Anderson; Tracy Onega; Susan Brandzel; Melissa A Rabelhofer; Susan Carol Bradford; Erin J Aiello Bowles
Journal:  Prev Med       Date:  2017-06-24       Impact factor: 4.018

4.  Evaluation of Interventions Intended to Increase Colorectal Cancer Screening Rates in the United States: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.

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

5.  Preventing Diagnostic Errors in Ambulatory Care: An Electronic Notification Tool for Incomplete Radiology Tests.

Authors:  Saul N Weingart; Omar Yaghi; Liz Barnhart; Sucharita Kher; John Mazzullo; Kari Roberts; Eric Lominac; Nancy Gittelson; Philip Argyris; William Harvey
Journal:  Appl Clin Inform       Date:  2020-04-15       Impact factor: 2.342

6.  Colorectal cancer screening interventions in 2 health care systems serving disadvantaged populations: Screening uptake and cost-effectiveness.

Authors:  Christen L Lara; Kelly L Means; Krystal D Morwood; Westley R Lighthall; Sonja Hoover; Florence K L Tangka; Cynthia French; Krystal D Gayle; Amy DeGroff; Sujha Subramanian
Journal:  Cancer       Date:  2018-10-25       Impact factor: 6.860

7.  Economics of Multicomponent Interventions to Increase Breast, Cervical, and Colorectal Cancer Screening: A Community Guide Systematic Review.

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

8.  Barriers to Colorectal Cancer Screening in a Primary Care Setting in Turkey.

Authors:  Mustafa Kursat Sahin; Servet Aker; Hatice Nilden Arslan
Journal:  J Community Health       Date:  2017-02

9.  Examining the Effectiveness of Provider Incentives to Increase CRC Screening Uptake in Neighborhood Healthcare: A California Federally Qualified Health Center.

Authors:  Melissa Barajas; Florence K L Tangka; James Schultz; Kulin Tantod; Ying Marilyn Kempster; Ndukaku Omelu; Sonja Hoover; Melonie Thomas; Valerie Richmond-Reese; Sujha Subramanian
Journal:  Health Promot Pract       Date:  2020-09-29

10.  An RCT to Increase Breast and Colorectal Cancer Screening.

Authors:  Victoria L Champion; Shannon M Christy; William Rakowski; David R Lairson; Patrick O Monahan; Wambui G Gathirua-Mwangi; Timothy E Stump; Erika B Biederman; Carla D Kettler; Susan M Rawl
Journal:  Am J Prev Med       Date:  2020-08       Impact factor: 5.043

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.