Literature DB >> 30915656

Mailed Outreach Is Superior to Usual Care Alone for Colorectal Cancer Screening in the USA: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.

Mark Jager1, Josh Demb2, Ali Asghar3, Kevin Selby4, Evelyn Marquez Mello5, Karen M Heskett6, Alicea J Lieberman7, Zhuo Geng8, Balambal Bharti9, Siddharth Singh10,11, Samir Gupta12,13.   

Abstract

Mailed outreach promoting colorectal cancer (CRC) screening with a stool blood test kit may increase participation, but magnitude and consistency of benefit of this intervention strategy is uncertain. Our aim was to conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing mailed outreach offering stool tests to usual care, clinic-based screening offers on CRC screening uptake in the USA. We performed a systematic literature search of five databases for RCTs of mailed outreach from January 1980 through June 2017. Primary outcome was screening completion, summarized using random-effects meta-analysis as pooled differences in proportion completing the screening and relative risk of achieving screening compared to control. Subgroup analyses by test type offered-fecal immunochemical test (FIT) or guaiac fecal occult blood test (gFOBT), the presence of telephone reminders, and the presence of predominant underserved/minority population within study were performed. Quality of evidence was evaluated using the GRADE framework. Seven RCTs which enrolled 12,501 subjects were included (n = 5703 assigned mailed outreach and n = 6798 usual care). Mailed outreach resulted in a 28% absolute (95% CI 25-30%; I2 = 47%) and a 2.8-fold relative (RR 2.65, 95% CI 2.03-3.45; I2 = 92%) increase in screening completion compared to usual care, with a number needed to invite estimated to be 3.6. Similar outcomes were observed across subgroups. Overall body of evidence was at moderate quality. Mailed outreach offering a gFOBT or FIT is associated with a large and consistent increase in CRC screening completion and should be considered for more widespread implementation for improving screening rates nationwide.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Cancer screening; Colorectal cancer; Meta-analyses; Systematic review

Mesh:

Year:  2019        PMID: 30915656      PMCID: PMC6706307          DOI: 10.1007/s10620-019-05587-6

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Dig Dis Sci        ISSN: 0163-2116            Impact factor:   3.199


  28 in total

1.  A randomized trial of direct mailing of fecal occult blood tests to increase colorectal cancer screening.

Authors:  Timothy R Church; Mark W Yeazel; Resa M Jones; Laura K Kochevar; Gavin D Watt; Steven J Mongin; Jill E Cordes; Deborah Engelhard
Journal:  J Natl Cancer Inst       Date:  2004-05-19       Impact factor: 13.506

2.  Effectiveness of a clinic-based colorectal cancer screening promotion program for underserved Hispanics.

Authors:  Gloria D Coronado; Ilya Golovaty; Gary Longton; Lisa Levy; Ricardo Jimenez
Journal:  Cancer       Date:  2010-11-08       Impact factor: 6.860

Review 3.  Systematic review: enhancing the use and quality of colorectal cancer screening.

Authors:  Debra J Holden; Daniel E Jonas; Deborah S Porterfield; Daniel Reuland; Russell Harris
Journal:  Ann Intern Med       Date:  2010-04-13       Impact factor: 25.391

4.  A system-based intervention to improve colorectal cancer screening uptake.

Authors:  Richard M Hoffman; Susan R Steel; Ellen F T Yee; Larry Massie; Ronald M Schrader; Maurice L Moffett; Glen H Murata
Journal:  Am J Manag Care       Date:  2011-01       Impact factor: 2.229

5.  Healthy colon, healthy life: a novel colorectal cancer screening intervention.

Authors:  Judith M E Walsh; Rene Salazar; Tung T Nguyen; Celia Kaplan; Lam Kieu Nguyen; Jimmy Hwang; Stephen J McPhee; Rena J Pasick
Journal:  Am J Prev Med       Date:  2010-07       Impact factor: 5.043

6.  Promoting use of colorectal cancer screening tests. Can we change physician behavior?

Authors:  Judith M E Walsh; René Salazar; Jonathan P Terdiman; Ginny Gildengorin; Eliseo J Pérez-Stable
Journal:  J Gen Intern Med       Date:  2005-12       Impact factor: 5.128

7.  Patient and physician reminders to promote colorectal cancer screening: a randomized controlled trial.

Authors:  Thomas D Sequist; Alan M Zaslavsky; Richard Marshall; Robert H Fletcher; John Z Ayanian
Journal:  Arch Intern Med       Date:  2009-02-23

8.  Mailings timed to patients' appointments: a controlled trial of fecal occult blood test cards.

Authors:  David Goldberg; Gordon D Schiff; Robert McNutt; Alice Furumoto-Dawson; Martha Hammerman; Arthur Hoffman
Journal:  Am J Prev Med       Date:  2004-06       Impact factor: 5.043

9.  Evaluating the effectiveness of GP endorsement on increasing participation in the NHS Bowel Cancer Screening Programme in England: study protocol for a randomized controlled trial.

Authors:  Sarah Damery; Steve Smith; Alison Clements; Roger Holder; Linda Nichols; Heather Draper; Sue Clifford; Laura Parker; Richard Hobbs; Sue Wilson
Journal:  Trials       Date:  2012-02-20       Impact factor: 2.279

10.  Cost-effectiveness of a mailed educational reminder to increase colorectal cancer screening.

Authors:  Jeffrey K Lee; Erik J Groessl; Theodore G Ganiats; Samuel B Ho
Journal:  BMC Gastroenterol       Date:  2011-08-25       Impact factor: 3.067

View more
  26 in total

1.  Outreach and Inreach Strategies for Colorectal Cancer Screening Among Latinos at a Federally Qualified Health Center: A Randomized Controlled Trial, 2015-2018.

Authors:  Sheila F Castañeda; Balambal Bharti; Marielena Rojas; Silvia Mercado; Adriana M Bearse; Jasmine Camacho; Manuel Song Lopez; Fatima Muñoz; Shawne O'Connell; Lin Liu; Gregory A Talavera; Samir Gupta
Journal:  Am J Public Health       Date:  2020-02-20       Impact factor: 9.308

2.  Results of an African American-targeted norm-based colorectal cancer screening intervention: a pilot study.

Authors:  Mark Manning; Todd Lucas; Hayley Thompson; Louis Penner
Journal:  J Behav Med       Date:  2022-10-07

3.  Racial and Ethnic Disparities in Colorectal Cancer Screening Pose Persistent Challenges to Health Equity.

Authors:  Joshua Demb; Samir Gupta
Journal:  Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol       Date:  2019-11-29       Impact factor: 11.382

4.  Who Is Reached With Clinic In-Reach and Outreach Strategies to Promote Colorectal Cancer Screening?

Authors:  Gloria D Coronado
Journal:  Am J Public Health       Date:  2020-04       Impact factor: 9.308

5.  Effectiveness and Cost-effectiveness of Mailed FIT in a Safety Net Clinic Population.

Authors:  Michael Pignone; Brennan Lanier; Nicole Kluz; Victoria Valencia; Patrick Chang; Todd Olmstead
Journal:  J Gen Intern Med       Date:  2021-04-30       Impact factor: 5.128

6.  Modelling tool to support decision-making in the NHS Health Check programme: workshops, systematic review and co-production with users.

Authors:  Martin O'Flaherty; Ffion Lloyd-Williams; Simon Capewell; Angela Boland; Michelle Maden; Brendan Collins; Piotr Bandosz; Lirije Hyseni; Chris Kypridemos
Journal:  Health Technol Assess       Date:  2021-05       Impact factor: 4.014

7.  A stepped randomized trial to promote colorectal cancer screening in a nationwide sample of U.S. Veterans.

Authors:  Sally W Vernon; Deborah J Del Junco; Sharon P Coan; Caitlin C Murphy; Scott T Walters; Robert H Friedman; Lori A Bastian; Deborah A Fisher; David R Lairson; Ronald E Myers
Journal:  Contemp Clin Trials       Date:  2021-04-03       Impact factor: 2.261

Review 8.  Framework and Strategies to Eliminate Disparities in Colorectal Cancer Screening Outcomes.

Authors:  Chyke A Doubeni; Kevin Selby; Samir Gupta
Journal:  Annu Rev Med       Date:  2020-11-18       Impact factor: 13.739

9.  A Centralized Program with Stepped Support Increases Adherence to Colorectal Cancer Screening Over 9 Years: a Randomized Trial.

Authors:  Beverly B Green; Melissa L Anderson; Andrea J Cook; Jessica Chubak; Sharon Fuller; Richard T Meenan; Sally W Vernon
Journal:  J Gen Intern Med       Date:  2021-05-28       Impact factor: 6.473

10.  The effect of deadlines on cancer screening completion: a randomized controlled trial.

Authors:  Alicea Lieberman; Ayelet Gneezy; Emily Berry; Stacie Miller; Mark Koch; Keith E Argenbright; Samir Gupta
Journal:  Sci Rep       Date:  2021-07-06       Impact factor: 4.379

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.