Importance: Approximately 24 million US individuals receive care at federally qualified health centers, which historically have low rates of colorectal cancer screening. The US Preventive Services Task Force recommends routine colorectal cancer screening for individuals aged 50 to 75 years. Objective: To determine the effectiveness of an electronic health record (EHR)-embedded mailed fecal immunochemical test (FIT) outreach program implemented in health centers as part of standard care. Design, Setting, and Participants: This cluster randomized pragmatic clinical trial was conducted in 26 federally qualified health center clinics, representing 8 health centers in Oregon and California, randomized to intervention (n = 13) orusual care (n = 13). All participants were overdue for colorectal cancer screening during the accrual interval (February 4, 2014 to February 3, 2015). Interventions: Electronic health record-embedded tools to identify eligible adults and to facilitate implementation of a stepwise mailed intervention involving (1) an introductory letter, (2) a mailed FIT, and (3) a reminder letter; training, collaborative learning, and facilitation through a practice improvement process. Main Outcomes and Measures: Effectiveness was measured as clinic-level proportions of adults who completed a FIT, and secondarily, any colorectal cancer screening within 12 months of accrual or by August 3, 2015. Implementation was measured as clinic-level proportions of adults who were mailed an introductory letter and ordered a FIT. Results:Twenty-six clinics with 41 193 adults (mean [SD] age, 58.5 [6.3] years; 22 994 women) were randomized to receive the direct mail colorectal screening intervention (13 clinics; 21 134 patients) or usual care (13 clinics; 20 059 patients). Compared with usual care clinics, intervention clinics had significantly higher adjusted clinic-level proportion of participants who completed a FIT (13.9% vs 10.4%; difference, 3.4 percentage points; 95% CI, 0.1%-6.8%) and any colorectal cancer screening (18.3% vs 14.5%; difference, 3.8 percentage points; 95% CI, 0.6%-7.0%). We observed large variation across health centers in effectiveness (FIT completion differences range, -7.4 percentage points to 17.6 percentage points) and implementation (proportion who were mailed a FIT range, 6.5% to 68.2%). The number needed to mail to achieve a completed FIT was 4.8 overall, and 4.0 in clinics that mailed a FIT reminder. Conclusions and Relevance: An EHR-embedded mailed FIT outreach intervention significantly improved rates of FIT completion and rates of any colorectal cancer screening. Higher rates of colorectal cancer screening occurred in clinics that successfully implemented the mailed outreach program. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT01742065.
RCT Entities:
Importance: Approximately 24 million US individuals receive care at federally qualified health centers, which historically have low rates of colorectal cancer screening. The US Preventive Services Task Force recommends routine colorectal cancer screening for individuals aged 50 to 75 years. Objective: To determine the effectiveness of an electronic health record (EHR)-embedded mailed fecal immunochemical test (FIT) outreach program implemented in health centers as part of standard care. Design, Setting, and Participants: This cluster randomized pragmatic clinical trial was conducted in 26 federally qualified health center clinics, representing 8 health centers in Oregon and California, randomized to intervention (n = 13) or usual care (n = 13). All participants were overdue for colorectal cancer screening during the accrual interval (February 4, 2014 to February 3, 2015). Interventions: Electronic health record-embedded tools to identify eligible adults and to facilitate implementation of a stepwise mailed intervention involving (1) an introductory letter, (2) a mailed FIT, and (3) a reminder letter; training, collaborative learning, and facilitation through a practice improvement process. Main Outcomes and Measures: Effectiveness was measured as clinic-level proportions of adults who completed a FIT, and secondarily, any colorectal cancer screening within 12 months of accrual or by August 3, 2015. Implementation was measured as clinic-level proportions of adults who were mailed an introductory letter and ordered a FIT. Results: Twenty-six clinics with 41 193 adults (mean [SD] age, 58.5 [6.3] years; 22 994 women) were randomized to receive the direct mail colorectal screening intervention (13 clinics; 21 134 patients) or usual care (13 clinics; 20 059 patients). Compared with usual care clinics, intervention clinics had significantly higher adjusted clinic-level proportion of participants who completed a FIT (13.9% vs 10.4%; difference, 3.4 percentage points; 95% CI, 0.1%-6.8%) and any colorectal cancer screening (18.3% vs 14.5%; difference, 3.8 percentage points; 95% CI, 0.6%-7.0%). We observed large variation across health centers in effectiveness (FIT completion differences range, -7.4 percentage points to 17.6 percentage points) and implementation (proportion who were mailed a FIT range, 6.5% to 68.2%). The number needed to mail to achieve a completed FIT was 4.8 overall, and 4.0 in clinics that mailed a FIT reminder. Conclusions and Relevance: An EHR-embedded mailed FIT outreach intervention significantly improved rates of FIT completion and rates of any colorectal cancer screening. Higher rates of colorectal cancer screening occurred in clinics that successfully implemented the mailed outreach program. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT01742065.
Authors: Clementine Nordon; Helene Karcher; Rolf H H Groenwold; Mikkel Zöllner Ankarfeldt; Franz Pichler; Helene Chevrou-Severac; Michel Rossignol; Adeline Abbe; Lucien Abenhaim Journal: Value Health Date: 2015-11-19 Impact factor: 5.725
Authors: Gloria D Coronado; Jennifer L Schneider; Amanda Petrik; Jennifer Rivelli; Stephen Taplin; Beverly B Green Journal: Transl Behav Med Date: 2017-09 Impact factor: 3.046
Authors: Amanda F Petrik; Beverly B Green; William M Vollmer; Thuy Le; Barbara Bachman; Erin Keast; Jennifer Rivelli; Gloria D Coronado Journal: Fam Pract Date: 2016-07-28 Impact factor: 2.267
Authors: Gloria D Coronado; William M Vollmer; Amanda Petrik; Stephen H Taplin; Timothy E Burdick; Richard T Meenan; Beverly B Green Journal: Contemp Clin Trials Date: 2014-06-14 Impact factor: 2.226
Authors: Ann G Zauber; Iris Lansdorp-Vogelaar; Amy B Knudsen; Janneke Wilschut; Marjolein van Ballegooijen; Karen M Kuntz Journal: Ann Intern Med Date: 2008-10-06 Impact factor: 25.391
Authors: Jennifer K Coury; Jennifer L Schneider; Beverly B Green; Laura-Mae Baldwin; Amanda F Petrik; Jennifer S Rivelli; Malaika R Schwartz; Gloria D Coronado Journal: Transl Behav Med Date: 2020-02-03 Impact factor: 3.046
Authors: Ma Somsouk; Carly Rachocki; Ajitha Mannalithara; Dianne Garcia; Victoria Laleau; Barbara Grimes; Rachel B Issaka; Ellen Chen; Eric Vittinghoff; Jean A Shapiro; Uri Ladabaum Journal: J Natl Cancer Inst Date: 2020-03-01 Impact factor: 13.506
Authors: Caitlin C Murphy; Ahana Sen; Bianca Watson; Samir Gupta; Helen Mayo; Amit G Singal Journal: Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev Date: 2019-11-18 Impact factor: 4.254
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
Authors: Gloria D Coronado; Eric S Johnson; Michael C Leo; Jennifer L Schneider; David Smith; Raj Mummadi; Amanda F Petrik; Jamie H Thompson; Ricardo Jimenez Journal: Contemp Clin Trials Date: 2019-12-24 Impact factor: 2.226
Authors: Melinda M Davis; Jennifer L Schneider; Rose Gunn; Jennifer S Rivelli; Katherine A Vaughn; Gloria D Coronado Journal: Transl Behav Med Date: 2021-03-16 Impact factor: 3.046