Literature DB >> 28505217

Effect of Combined Patient Decision Aid and Patient Navigation vs Usual Care for Colorectal Cancer Screening in a Vulnerable Patient Population: A Randomized Clinical Trial.

Daniel S Reuland1, Alison T Brenner1, Richard Hoffman2, Andrew McWilliams3, Robert L Rhyne4, Christina Getrich5, Hazel Tapp3, Mark A Weaver6, Danelle Callan7, Laura Cubillos8, Brisa Urquieta de Hernandez3, Michael P Pignone9.   

Abstract

Importance: Colorectal cancer (CRC) screening is underused, especially among vulnerable populations. Decision aids and patient navigation are potentially complementary interventions for improving CRC screening rates, but their combined effect on screening completion is unknown. Objective: To determine the combined effect of a CRC screening decision aid and patient navigation compared with usual care on CRC screening completion. Design, Setting, and Participants: In this randomized clinical trial, data were collected from January 2014 to March 2016 at 2 community health center practices, 1 in North Carolina and 1 in New Mexico, serving vulnerable populations. Patients ages 50 to 75 years who had average CRC risk, spoke English or Spanish, were not current with recommended CRC screening, and were attending primary care visits were recruited and randomized 1:1 to intervention or control arms. Interventions: Intervention participants viewed a CRC screening decision aid in English or Spanish immediately before their clinician encounter. The decision aid promoted screening and presented colonoscopy and fecal occult blood testing as screening options. After the clinician encounter, intervention patients received support for screening completion from a bilingual patient navigator. Control participants viewed a food safety video before the encounter and otherwise received usual care. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was CRC screening completion within 6 months of the index study visit assessed by blinded medical record review.
Results: Characteristics of the 265 participants were as follows: their mean age was 58 years; 173 (65%) were female, 164 (62%) were Latino; 40 (15%) were white non-Latino; 61 (23%) were black or of mixed race; 191 (78%) had a household income of less than $20 000; 101 (38%) had low literacy; 75 (28%) were on Medicaid; and 91 (34%) were uninsured. Intervention participants were more likely to complete CRC screening within 6 months (68% vs 27%); adjusted-difference, 40 percentage points (95% CI, 29-51 percentage points). The intervention was more effective in women than in men (50 vs 21 percentage point increase, interaction P = .02). No effect modification was observed across other subgroups. Conclusions and Relevance: A patient decision aid plus patient navigation increased the rate of CRC screening completion in compared with usual care invulnerable primary care patients. Trial Registration: clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT02054598.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2017        PMID: 28505217      PMCID: PMC5710456          DOI: 10.1001/jamainternmed.2017.1294

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  JAMA Intern Med        ISSN: 2168-6106            Impact factor:   21.873


  59 in total

1.  Primary care: is there enough time for prevention?

Authors:  Kimberly S H Yarnall; Kathryn I Pollak; Truls Østbye; Katrina M Krause; J Lloyd Michener
Journal:  Am J Public Health       Date:  2003-04       Impact factor: 9.308

Review 2.  Computer-tailored health interventions delivered over the Web: review and analysis of key components.

Authors:  Mia Liza A Lustria; Juliann Cortese; Seth M Noar; Robert L Glueckauf
Journal:  Patient Educ Couns       Date:  2008-10-22

3.  Patient Navigation for Comprehensive Cancer Screening in High-Risk Patients Using a Population-Based Health Information Technology System: A Randomized Clinical Trial.

Authors:  Sanja Percac-Lima; Jeffrey M Ashburner; Adrian H Zai; Yuchiao Chang; Sarah A Oo; Erica Guimaraes; Steven J Atlas
Journal:  JAMA Intern Med       Date:  2016-07-01       Impact factor: 21.873

4.  The impact of cultural characteristics on colorectal cancer screening adherence among Filipinos in the United States: a pilot study.

Authors:  Rizaldy R Ferrer; Marizen Ramirez; Linda J Beckman; Leda L Danao; Kimlin T Ashing-Giwa
Journal:  Psychooncology       Date:  2010-06-30       Impact factor: 3.894

5.  Colorectal cancer screening among ethnically diverse, low-income patients: a randomized controlled trial.

Authors:  Karen E Lasser; Jennifer Murillo; Sandra Lisboa; A Naomie Casimir; Lisa Valley-Shah; Karen M Emmons; Robert H Fletcher; John Z Ayanian
Journal:  Arch Intern Med       Date:  2011-05-23

6.  Low income parents' reports of communication problems with health care providers: effects of language and insurance.

Authors:  Lisa Clemans-Cope; Genevieve Kenney
Journal:  Public Health Rep       Date:  2007 Mar-Apr       Impact factor: 2.792

7.  Factors associated with racial/ethnic differences in colorectal cancer screening.

Authors:  Navkiran K Shokar; Carol A Carlson; Susan C Weller
Journal:  J Am Board Fam Med       Date:  2008 Sep-Oct       Impact factor: 2.657

8.  A culturally tailored navigator program for colorectal cancer screening in a community health center: a randomized, controlled trial.

Authors:  Sanja Percac-Lima; Richard W Grant; Alexander R Green; Jeffrey M Ashburner; Gloria Gamba; Sarah Oo; James M Richter; Steven J Atlas
Journal:  J Gen Intern Med       Date:  2009-02       Impact factor: 5.128

9.  Preferences for colorectal cancer screening among racially/ethnically diverse primary care patients.

Authors:  Sarah T Hawley; Robert J Volk; Partha Krishnamurthy; Maria Jibaja-Weiss; Sally W Vernon; Suzanne Kneuper
Journal:  Med Care       Date:  2008-09       Impact factor: 2.983

10.  Reach, usage, and effectiveness of a Medicaid patient navigator intervention to increase colorectal cancer screening, Cape Fear, North Carolina, 2011.

Authors:  Lucia A Leone; Daniel S Reuland; Carmen L Lewis; Mary Ingle; Brian Erman; Tyana J Summers; C Annette Dubard; Michael P Pignone
Journal:  Prev Chronic Dis       Date:  2013-05-23       Impact factor: 2.830

View more
  36 in total

1.  Diagnostic Evaluation of Patients Presenting to Primary Care with Rectal Bleeding.

Authors:  Sanja Percac-Lima; Lydia E Pace; Kevin H Nguyen; Charis N Crofton; Katharine A Normandin; Sara J Singer; Meredith B Rosenthal; Alyna T Chien
Journal:  J Gen Intern Med       Date:  2018-01-04       Impact factor: 5.128

2.  From guideline to practice: New shared decision-making tools for colorectal cancer screening from the American Cancer Society.

Authors:  Robert J Volk; Viola B Leal; Lianne E Jacobs; Andrew M D Wolf; Durado D Brooks; Richard C Wender; Robert A Smith
Journal:  CA Cancer J Clin       Date:  2018-05-30       Impact factor: 508.702

3.  Impact of Navigators on First Visit to a Transplant Center, Waitlisting, and Kidney Transplantation: A Randomized, Controlled Trial.

Authors:  Catherine M Sullivan; Kitty V Barnswell; Kate Greenway; Cindy M Kamps; Derrick Wilson; Jeffrey M Albert; Jacqueline Dolata; Anne Huml; Julie A Pencak; John T Ducker; Roberto Gedaly; Christopher M Jones; Todd Pesavento; Ashwini R Sehgal
Journal:  Clin J Am Soc Nephrol       Date:  2018-08-22       Impact factor: 8.237

4.  Using Patients' Social Network to Improve Compliance to Outpatient Screening Colonoscopy Appointments Among Blacks: A Randomized Clinical Trial.

Authors:  Adeyinka O Laiyemo; John Kwagyan; Carla D Williams; Jessica Rogers; Angesom Kibreab; Momodu A Jack; Edward E Lee; Hassan Brim; Hassan Ashktorab; Charles D Howell; Duane T Smoot; Elizabeth A Platz
Journal:  Am J Gastroenterol       Date:  2019-10       Impact factor: 10.864

5.  Use of Appropriate Surveillance for Patients With Nondysplastic Barrett's Esophagus.

Authors:  Anna Tavakkoli; Henry D Appelman; David G Beer; Chaitra Madiyal; Maryam Khodadost; Kimberly Nofz; Val Metko; Grace Elta; Thomas Wang; Joel H Rubenstein
Journal:  Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol       Date:  2018-02-09       Impact factor: 11.382

6.  Effect of a Digital Health Intervention on Decreasing Barriers and Increasing Facilitators for Colorectal Cancer Screening in Vulnerable Patients.

Authors:  Nancy M Denizard-Thompson; David P Miller; Anna C Snavely; John G Spangler; L Doug Case; Kathryn E Weaver
Journal:  Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev       Date:  2020-05-07       Impact factor: 4.254

Review 7.  Effectiveness of Patient Navigation to Increase Cancer Screening in Populations Adversely Affected by Health Disparities: a Meta-analysis.

Authors:  Heidi D Nelson; Amy Cantor; Jesse Wagner; Rebecca Jungbauer; Rongwei Fu; Karli Kondo; Lucy Stillman; Ana Quiñones
Journal:  J Gen Intern Med       Date:  2020-07-22       Impact factor: 5.128

8.  Effect of a Digital Health Intervention on Receipt of Colorectal Cancer Screening in Vulnerable Patients: A Randomized Controlled Trial.

Authors:  David P Miller; Nancy Denizard-Thompson; Kathryn E Weaver; L Doug Case; Jennifer L Troyer; John G Spangler; Donna Lawler; Michael P Pignone
Journal:  Ann Intern Med       Date:  2018-03-13       Impact factor: 25.391

9.  Economic assessment of patient navigation to colonoscopy-based colorectal cancer screening in the real-world setting at the University of Chicago Medical Center.

Authors:  Karen E Kim; Fornessa Randal; Matt Johnson; Michael Quinn; Chieko Maene; Sonja Hoover; Valerie Richmond-Reese; Florence K L Tangka; Djenaba A Joseph; Sujha Subramanian
Journal:  Cancer       Date:  2018-10-25       Impact factor: 6.860

10.  Promoting colonoscopy screening among low-income Latinos at average risk of colorectal cancer: A randomized clinical trial.

Authors:  Katherine N DuHamel; Elizabeth A Schofield; Cristina Villagra; Pathu Sriphanlop; Steven H Itzkowitz; Gina Cotter; Noah Cohen; Deborah O Erwin; Gary Winkel; Hayley S Thompson; Ann G Zauber; Lina H Jandorf
Journal:  Cancer       Date:  2019-11-19       Impact factor: 6.860

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.