| Literature DB >> 27220976 |
Kei Hirai1, Yoshiki Ishikawa2, Jun Fukuyoshi3, Akio Yonekura3, Kazuhiro Harada4, Daisuke Shibuya5, Seiichiro Yamamoto6, Yuri Mizota6, Chisato Hamashima7, Hiroshi Saito7.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The purpose of this study was to examine the effectiveness and cost-efficiency of a tailored message intervention compared with a non-tailored message intervention for increasing colorectal cancer (CRC) screening rates among a non-adherent population, in a community-based client reminder program.Entities:
Keywords: CRC screening; Cancer worry; Cost-effectiveness; Non-adherent population; Tailored intervention
Mesh:
Year: 2016 PMID: 27220976 PMCID: PMC4877938 DOI: 10.1186/s12889-016-3069-y
Source DB: PubMed Journal: BMC Public Health ISSN: 1471-2458 Impact factor: 3.295
Fig. 1Flow diagram of the trial process
Tailored persuasive message examples
| Message | Group | Type of message sent |
|---|---|---|
| A | High screening intention | Clear information about where/when/how they can receive screening |
| B | Low screening intention/high cancer worry | Gain-framed message: |
| “Detecting cancer early can lead to a higher chance of survival” | ||
| C | Low screening intention/low cancer worry | Loss-framed message: |
| “Not detecting cancer early can increase the risk of fatality” | ||
| Control group | Usual reminder: | |
| “You are due for your cancer screening” |
Baseline demographic and psychological characteristics of the four study groups (n = 2140)
| Intervention group | Control group 1 | Control group 2 |
| |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Matched message | Unmatched message | |||||||||
| Mean/ratio | SD | Mean/ratio | SD | Mean/ratio | SD | Mean/ratio | SD | |||
| Intention (scale: 1–3) | 2.04 | 0.59 | 2.07 | 0.57 | 2.03 | 0.60 | 2.05 | 0.59 | 0.786 | |
| Cancer worry (scale: 1–4) | 2.52 | 0.72 | 2.54 | 0.75 | 2.54 | 0.75 | 2.53 | 0.74 | 0.964 | |
| Age | 40s | 4.8 % | – | 4.6 % | – | 4.9 % | – | 6.1 % | – | 0.859 |
| 50s | 25.4 % | – | 22.3 % | – | 24.4 % | – | 24.3 % | – | ||
| 60s | 69.9 % | – | 73.1 % | – | 70.7 % | – | 69.7 % | – | ||
| Sex | Male | 44.2 % | – | 39.3 % | – | 42.7 % | – | 41.5 % | – | 0.574 |
| Female | 55.8 % | – | 60.7 % | – | 57.3 % | – | 58.5 % | – | ||
| Marital status | Married | 73.9 % | – | 70.2 % | – | 68.7 % | – | 71.8 % | – | 0.315 |
| Unmarried | 26.1 % | – | 29.8 % | – | 31.3 % | – | 28.2 % | – | ||
| Education level (scale: 1–5) | 2.34 | 0.99 | 2.26 | 0.93 | 2.33 | 0.93 | 2.30 | 0.91 | 0.599 | |
| Subjective economic status (scale: 1–5) | 2.57 | 0.86 | 2.66 | 0.89 | 2.58 | 0.89 | 2.66 | 0.87 | 0.258 | |
Fig. 2Results for attendance rates and logistic regression for tailored matchedmessage condition, unmatched-message condition, and control
Differences in FOBT attendance rates among segments for each intervention condition
| Segment | Tailored matched-message condition | Tailored unmatched-message condition | Tailored intervention total | Control group 1e | Control group 2 | Control total |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| A | 21.1 % | 15.5 % | 18.3 % | 13.5 % | 14.8 % | 14.2 % |
| B | 14.2 % | 14.2 % | 13.8 % | 8.1 % | 11.0 % | 9.6 % |
| C | 14.0 % | 6.3 % | 8.4 % | 6.8 % | 9.7 % | 8.3 % |
| Total | 14.0 % | 11.0 % | 12.5 % | 8.6 % | 11.2 % | 9.9 % |
Note: Attendance rate percentages are shown
Cost and cost-effectiveness of the tailored intervention, control group 1, and control group 2 materials
| Item | Tailored matched-messagecondition | Tailored unmatched-message condition | Control | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unit price (JPY) | Quantity | Total cost (JPY) | Unit price (JPY) | Quantity | Total cost (JPY) | Unit price (JPY) | Quantity | Total cost (JPY) | ||
| Individual assessment | ||||||||||
| Questionnaire | 30 | 356 | 10 680 | 30 | 355 | 10 650 | 0 | |||
| Envelopes | 42 | 356 | 14 952 | 42 | 355 | 14 910 | 0 | |||
| Postage | 175 | 356 | 62 300 | 175 | 355 | 62 125 | 0 | |||
| Data entry and analysis | 5 | 356 | 1780 | 5 | 355 | 1775 | 0 | |||
| Overhead costsa | 10 000 | 3 | 30 000 | 10 000 | 3 | 30 000 | 10 000 | 12 | 120 000 | |
| Reminder | ||||||||||
| Envelopes | 26 | 356 | 9256 | 26 | 355 | 9230 | 26 | 1,429 | 37 154 | |
| Printing | 43 | 356 | 15 308 | 43 | 355 | 15 265 | 43 | 1,429 | 61 447 | |
| Postage | 120 | 356 | 42 720 | 120 | 355 | 42 600 | 120 | 1,429 | 171 480 | |
| Total cost | 186 996 | 186 555 | 390 081 | |||||||
| Cost per participant | 524 | 523 | 273 | |||||||
| Cost per extra CRC | 3740 | 4783 | 2747 | |||||||
Individual assessment costs in the control were excluded, because individual assessment would not be needed without tailoring procedure
aBased on administrative staff salary: 10 000 JPY/day