Literature DB >> 29891726

The Efficacy of Direct Mail, Patient Navigation, and Incentives for Increasing Mammography and Colonoscopy in the Medicaid Population: A Randomized Controlled Trial.

Jonathan S Slater1, Michael J Parks2, Christina L Nelson2, Kelly D Hughes2.   

Abstract

Background: Despite lower cancer screening rates and survival rates in the Medicaid population compared with those with private insurance, there is a dearth of population-based, evidence-based interventions targeting Medicaid clients to address this problem.
Methods: This study reports results of a population-based randomized controlled trial (RCT) among all individuals enrolled in Minnesota's Medicaid program who were overdue for breast cancer (n = 22,113) and/or colorectal cancer (n = 94,294) screening. Individuals were randomized to intervention or control groups. The intervention group received persuasive and innovative direct mail materials coupled with a $20 incentive for using their Medicaid benefit to get screened. Direct mail materials provided a phone number to a call center staffed by patient navigators who addressed barriers and scheduled appointments via three-way calls. The control group received the intervention 15 months later. Primary outcomes were completion of mammography or colonoscopy within 12 weeks of the intervention. Billing claims served as evidence of screening.
Results: Multivariate logistic regression showed significant differences for both breast cancer (P < 0.001) and colorectal cancer (P < 0.01). The odds of receiving a mammogram for the treatment group were significantly higher than the control group [OR = 1.30; 95% confidence interval (95% CI) = 1.16-1.46], and the treatment group was more likely to receive a colonoscopy than the control group (OR = 1.12; 95% CI = 1.04-1.21).Conclusions: This population-based intervention increased breast cancer and colorectal cancer screening in a Medicaid population overdue for screening.Impact: These findings may have broad application for reaching individuals who generally remain outside the health care system despite having public health insurance. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev; 27(9); 1047-56. ©2018 AACR. ©2018 American Association for Cancer Research.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2018        PMID: 29891726      PMCID: PMC6125204          DOI: 10.1158/1055-9965.EPI-18-0038

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev        ISSN: 1055-9965            Impact factor:   4.254


  55 in total

1.  Impact of patient and navigator race and language concordance on care after cancer screening abnormalities.

Authors:  Marjory Charlot; M Christina Santana; Clara A Chen; Sharon Bak; Timothy C Heeren; Tracy A Battaglia; A Patrick Egan; Richard Kalish; Karen M Freund
Journal:  Cancer       Date:  2015-01-06       Impact factor: 6.860

2.  The origin, evolution, and principles of patient navigation.

Authors:  Harold P Freeman
Journal:  Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev       Date:  2012-10       Impact factor: 4.254

3.  Improving medicaid health incentives programs: lessons from substance abuse treatment research.

Authors:  Dennis J Hand; Sarah H Heil; Stacey C Sigmon; Stephen T Higgins
Journal:  Prev Med       Date:  2014-03-12       Impact factor: 4.018

4.  Effect of direct mail as a population-based strategy to increase mammography use among low-income underinsured women ages 40 to 64 years.

Authors:  Jonathan S Slater; George A Henly; Chung Nim Ha; Michael E Malone; John A Nyman; Sarah Diaz; Paul G McGovern
Journal:  Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev       Date:  2005-10       Impact factor: 4.254

5.  Screening for Colorectal Cancer: US Preventive Services Task Force Recommendation Statement.

Authors:  Kirsten Bibbins-Domingo; David C Grossman; Susan J Curry; Karina W Davidson; John W Epling; Francisco A R García; Matthew W Gillman; Diane M Harper; Alex R Kemper; Alex H Krist; Ann E Kurth; C Seth Landefeld; Carol M Mangione; Douglas K Owens; William R Phillips; Maureen G Phipps; Michael P Pignone; Albert L Siu
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  2016-06-21       Impact factor: 56.272

6.  Health status, risk factors, and medical conditions among persons enrolled in Medicaid vs uninsured low-income adults potentially eligible for Medicaid under the Affordable Care Act.

Authors:  Sandra L Decker; Deliana Kostova; Genevieve M Kenney; Sharon K Long
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  2013-06-26       Impact factor: 56.272

7.  The effects of mailed reminders and tailored messages on mammography screening.

Authors:  Kevin D McCaul; Kimberly S Wold
Journal:  J Community Health       Date:  2002-06

8.  Factorial experiments: efficient tools for evaluation of intervention components.

Authors:  Linda M Collins; John J Dziak; Kari C Kugler; Jessica B Trail
Journal:  Am J Prev Med       Date:  2014-08-01       Impact factor: 5.043

Review 9.  The effectiveness of financial incentives for health behaviour change: systematic review and meta-analysis.

Authors:  Emma L Giles; Shannon Robalino; Elaine McColl; Falko F Sniehotta; Jean Adams
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2014-03-11       Impact factor: 3.240

Review 10.  Methods to increase participation in organised screening programs: a systematic review.

Authors:  Laura Camilloni; Eliana Ferroni; Beatriz Jimenez Cendales; Annamaria Pezzarossi; Giacomo Furnari; Piero Borgia; Gabriella Guasticchi; Paolo Giorgi Rossi
Journal:  BMC Public Health       Date:  2013-05-13       Impact factor: 3.295

View more
  9 in total

1.  Financial Incentives to Increase Colorectal Cancer Screening Uptake and Decrease Disparities: A Randomized Clinical Trial.

Authors:  Beverly B Green; Melissa L Anderson; Andrea J Cook; Jessica Chubak; Sharon Fuller; Kilian J Kimbel; Jeffrey T Kullgren; Richard T Meenan; Sally W Vernon
Journal:  JAMA Netw Open       Date:  2019-07-03

2.  Purged from the Rolls: A Study of Medicaid Disenrollment in Iowa.

Authors:  Natoshia M Askelson; Patrick Brady; Brad Wright; Suzanne Bentler; Elizabeth T Momany; Peter Damiano
Journal:  Health Equity       Date:  2019-12-16

3.  Addition of Financial Incentives to Mailed Outreach for Promoting Colorectal Cancer Screening: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.

Authors:  Antonio Facciorusso; Joshua Demb; Babu P Mohan; Samir Gupta; Siddharth Singh
Journal:  JAMA Netw Open       Date:  2021-08-02

4.  Revisiting the Effects of Organized Mammography Programs on Inequalities in Breast Screening Uptake: A Multilevel Analysis of Nationwide Data From 1997 to 2017.

Authors:  Vladimir Jolidon; Vincent De Prez; Piet Bracke; Andrew Bell; Claudine Burton-Jeangros; Stéphane Cullati
Journal:  Front Public Health       Date:  2022-02-07

Review 5.  Effectiveness of behavioural economics-based interventions to improve colorectal cancer screening participation: A rapid systematic review of randomised controlled trials.

Authors:  Lily C Taylor; Robert S Kerrison; Benedikt Herrmann; Sandro T Stoffel
Journal:  Prev Med Rep       Date:  2022-03-03

6.  Impact of Patient Navigation on Population-Based Breast Screening: a Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Randomized Clinical Trials.

Authors:  Lu Tian; Lei Huang; Jie Liu; Xia Li; Aisha Ajmal; Maryam Ajmal; Yunjin Yao; Li Tian
Journal:  J Gen Intern Med       Date:  2022-06-01       Impact factor: 6.473

7.  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

8.  Direct-to-member mailed colorectal cancer screening outreach for Medicaid and Medicare enrollees: Implementation and effectiveness outcomes from the BeneFIT study.

Authors:  Gloria D Coronado; Beverly B Green; Imara I West; Malaika R Schwartz; Jennifer K Coury; William M Vollmer; Jean A Shapiro; Amanda F Petrik; Laura-Mae Baldwin
Journal:  Cancer       Date:  2019-10-28       Impact factor: 6.860

9.  Reducing Socioeconomic Disparities in Comprehensive Smoke-Free Rules among Households with Children: A Pilot Intervention Implemented through a National Cancer Program.

Authors:  Michael J Parks; Michelle C Kegler; John H Kingsbury; Iris W Borowsky
Journal:  Int J Environ Res Public Health       Date:  2020-09-17       Impact factor: 3.390

  9 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.