Judith Walsh1, Michael Potter2, Rene Salazar3,4, Elizabeth Ozer5,6, Ginny Gildengorin7, Natasha Dass7, Lawrence Green8. 1. Division of General Internal Medicine, Department of Medicine, University of California San Francisco, San Francisco, CA, USA. judith.walsh@ucsf.edu. 2. Department of Family and Community Medicine, University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, CA, USA. 3. Department of Medical Education, The University of Texas at Austin, Austin, TX, USA. 4. Department of Internal Medicine, The University of Texas at Austin, Austin, TX, USA. 5. Division of Adolescent and Young Adult Medicine, Department of Pediatrics, University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, CA, USA. 6. Office of Diversity and Outreach, University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, CA, USA. 7. Division of General Internal Medicine, Department of Medicine, University of California San Francisco, San Francisco, CA, USA. 8. Helen Diller Comprehensive Cancer Center and Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, CA, USA.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Women aged 50-70 should receive breast, cervical (until age 65), and colorectal cancer (CRC) screening; men aged 50-70 should receive CRC screening and should discuss prostate cancer screening (PSA). PreView, an interactive, individually tailored Video Doctor Plus Provider Alert Intervention, adresses all cancers for which average risk 50-70-year-old individuals are due for screening or screening discussion. METHODS: We conducted a randomized controlled trial in 6 clinical sites. Participants were randomized to PreView or a video about healthy lifestyle. Intervention group participants completed PreView before their appointment and their clinicians received a "Provider Alert." Primary outcomes were receipt of mammography, Pap tests (with or without HPV testing), CRC screening (FIT in last year or colonoscopy in last 10 years), and PSA screening discussion. Additional outcomes included breast, cervical, and CRC screening discussion. RESULTS: A total of 508 individuals participated, 257 in the control group and 251 in the intervention group. Screening rates were relatively high at baseline. Compared with baseline screening rates, there was no significant increase in mammography or Pap smear screening, and a nonsignificant increase (18% vs 12%) in CRC screening. Intervention participants reported a higher rate of PSA discussion than did control participants (58% vs 36%: P < 0.01). Similar increases were seen in discussions about mammography, cervical cancer, and CRC screening. CONCLUSION: In clinics with relatively high overall screening rates at baseline, PreView did not result in significant increases in breast, cervical, or CRC screening. PreView led to an increase in PSA screening discussion. Clinician-patient discussion of all cancer screenings significantly increased, suggesting that interventions like PreView may be most useful when discussion of the pros and cons of screening is recommended and/or with patients reluctant to undergo screening. Future research should investigate PreView's impact on those who are hesitant or reluctant to undergo screening. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT02264782.
BACKGROUND: Women aged 50-70 should receive breast, cervical (until age 65), and colorectal cancer (CRC) screening; men aged 50-70 should receive CRC screening and should discuss prostate cancer screening (PSA). PreView, an interactive, individually tailored Video Doctor Plus Provider Alert Intervention, adresses all cancers for which average risk 50-70-year-old individuals are due for screening or screening discussion. METHODS: We conducted a randomized controlled trial in 6 clinical sites. Participants were randomized to PreView or a video about healthy lifestyle. Intervention group participants completed PreView before their appointment and their clinicians received a "Provider Alert." Primary outcomes were receipt of mammography, Pap tests (with or without HPV testing), CRC screening (FIT in last year or colonoscopy in last 10 years), and PSA screening discussion. Additional outcomes included breast, cervical, and CRC screening discussion. RESULTS: A total of 508 individuals participated, 257 in the control group and 251 in the intervention group. Screening rates were relatively high at baseline. Compared with baseline screening rates, there was no significant increase in mammography or Pap smear screening, and a nonsignificant increase (18% vs 12%) in CRC screening. Intervention participants reported a higher rate of PSA discussion than did control participants (58% vs 36%: P < 0.01). Similar increases were seen in discussions about mammography, cervical cancer, and CRC screening. CONCLUSION: In clinics with relatively high overall screening rates at baseline, PreView did not result in significant increases in breast, cervical, or CRC screening. PreView led to an increase in PSA screening discussion. Clinician-patient discussion of all cancer screenings significantly increased, suggesting that interventions like PreView may be most useful when discussion of the pros and cons of screening is recommended and/or with patients reluctant to undergo screening. Future research should investigate PreView's impact on those who are hesitant or reluctant to undergo screening. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT02264782.
Entities:
Keywords:
cancer screening; primary care intervention
Authors: Judith M E Walsh; Celia P Kaplan; Bang Nguyen; Ginny Gildengorin; Stephen J McPhee; Eliseo J Pérez-Stable Journal: J Gen Intern Med Date: 2004-02 Impact factor: 5.128
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
Authors: Andrew M D Wolf; Richard C Wender; Ruth B Etzioni; Ian M Thompson; Anthony V D'Amico; Robert J Volk; Durado D Brooks; Chiranjeev Dash; Idris Guessous; Kimberly Andrews; Carol DeSantis; Robert A Smith Journal: CA Cancer J Clin Date: 2010-03-03 Impact factor: 508.702
Authors: R A Hiatt; R J Pasick; S Stewart; J Bloom; P Davis; P Gardiner; M Johnston; J Luce; K Schorr; W Brunner; F Stroud Journal: Prev Med Date: 2001-09 Impact factor: 4.018