Adeyinka O Laiyemo1, John Kwagyan2, Carla D Williams1, Jessica Rogers1, Angesom Kibreab1, Momodu A Jack1, Edward E Lee3, Hassan Brim3, Hassan Ashktorab1, Charles D Howell1, Duane T Smoot4, Elizabeth A Platz5. 1. Department of Medicine, Howard University College of Medicine, Washington, DC, USA. 2. Design, Biostatistics and Population Studies for Georgetown-Howard Universities Center for Clinical and Translations Science, Washington, DC, USA. 3. Department of Pathology, Howard University College of Medicine, Washington, DC, USA. 4. Department of Medicine, Meharry Medical College, Nashville, Tennessee, USA. 5. Department of Epidemiology, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, Maryland, USA.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES:Patient navigation improves colorectal cancer screening among underserved populations, but limited resources preclude widespread adoption in minority-serving institutions. We evaluated whether a patient's self-selected social contact person can effectively facilitate outpatient screening colonoscopy. METHODS:From September 2014 to March 2017 in an urban tertiary center, 399 black participants scheduled for outpatient screening colonoscopy self-selected a social contact person to be a facilitator and provided the person's phone number. Of these, 201 participants (50.4%) were randomly assigned to the intervention arm for their social contact persons to be engaged by phone. The study was explained to the social contact person with details about colonoscopy screening and bowel preparation process. The social contacts were asked to assist the participants, provide support, and encourage compliance with the procedures. The social contact person was not contacted in the usual care arm, n = 198 (49.6%). We evaluated attendance to the scheduled outpatient colonoscopy and adequacy of bowel preparation. Analysis was performed by intention to treat. RESULTS: The social contact person was reached and agreed to be involved for 130 of the 201 participants (64.7%). No differences were found in the proportion of participants who underwent screening colonoscopy (77.3% vs 77.2%; relative risk = 1.01; 95% confidence interval: 0.91-1.12), but there was a modest increase in the proportion with adequate bowel preparation with social contact involvement (89.1% vs 80.9%; relative risk = 1.10; 95% confidence interval: 1.00-1.21). DISCUSSION: Engaging a patient's social network to serve in the role of a patient navigator did not improve compliance to outpatient screening colonoscopy but modestly improved the adequacy of bowel preparation.
RCT Entities:
OBJECTIVES:Patient navigation improves colorectal cancer screening among underserved populations, but limited resources preclude widespread adoption in minority-serving institutions. We evaluated whether a patient's self-selected social contact person can effectively facilitate outpatient screening colonoscopy. METHODS: From September 2014 to March 2017 in an urban tertiary center, 399 black participants scheduled for outpatient screening colonoscopy self-selected a social contact person to be a facilitator and provided the person's phone number. Of these, 201 participants (50.4%) were randomly assigned to the intervention arm for their social contact persons to be engaged by phone. The study was explained to the social contact person with details about colonoscopy screening and bowel preparation process. The social contacts were asked to assist the participants, provide support, and encourage compliance with the procedures. The social contact person was not contacted in the usual care arm, n = 198 (49.6%). We evaluated attendance to the scheduled outpatient colonoscopy and adequacy of bowel preparation. Analysis was performed by intention to treat. RESULTS: The social contact person was reached and agreed to be involved for 130 of the 201 participants (64.7%). No differences were found in the proportion of participants who underwent screening colonoscopy (77.3% vs 77.2%; relative risk = 1.01; 95% confidence interval: 0.91-1.12), but there was a modest increase in the proportion with adequate bowel preparation with social contact involvement (89.1% vs 80.9%; relative risk = 1.10; 95% confidence interval: 1.00-1.21). DISCUSSION: Engaging a patient's social network to serve in the role of a patient navigator did not improve compliance to outpatient screening colonoscopy but modestly improved the adequacy of bowel preparation.
Authors: Adeyinka O Laiyemo; Carla D Williams; Clinton Burnside; Sepideh Moghadam; Kamla D Sanasi-Bhola; John Kwagyan; Hassan Brim; Hassan Ashktorab; Victor F Scott; Duane T Smoot Journal: Postgrad Med J Date: 2014-09-01 Impact factor: 2.401
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
Authors: Alexander R Green; Angelleen Peters-Lewis; Sanja Percac-Lima; Joseph R Betancourt; James M Richter; Maria-Pamela R Janairo; Gloria B Gamba; Steven J Atlas Journal: J Gen Intern Med Date: 2008-03-19 Impact factor: 5.128
Authors: Kristen J Wells; Tracy A Battaglia; Donald J Dudley; Roland Garcia; Amanda Greene; Elizabeth Calhoun; Jeanne S Mandelblatt; Electra D Paskett; Peter C Raich Journal: Cancer Date: 2008-10-15 Impact factor: 6.860
Authors: Aminah Jatoi; Paul Novotny; Stephen Cassivi; Matthew M Clark; David Midthun; Christi A Patten; Jeff Sloan; Ping Yang Journal: Oncologist Date: 2007-12
Authors: Ronald G Victor; Joseph E Ravenell; Anne Freeman; Deepa G Bhat; Joy S Storm; Moiz Shafiq; Patricia Knowles; Peter J Hannan; Robert Haley; David Leonard Journal: Am Heart J Date: 2009-01 Impact factor: 4.749
Authors: Robert C Miller; Pamela J Atherton; Brian F Kabat; Mary B Fredericksen; Debra M Geno; Claude Deschamps; Aminah Jatoi; Jeff A Sloan; Yvonne Romero Journal: Dig Dis Sci Date: 2010-01-22 Impact factor: 3.199