Erin E Hahn1,2,3, Aileen Baecker4, Ernest Shen4, Eric C Haupt4, Wahid Wakach5, Andre Ahuja5, Tracy M Imley5, Michael K Gould4,6, Michael Kanter7. 1. Department of Research and Evaluation, Kaiser Permanente Southern California, 100 S. Los Robles Ave, Pasadena, CA, 91101, USA. Erin.E.Hahn@kp.org. 2. Kaiser Permanente Bernard J. Tyson School of Medicine, Department of Health Systems Science, Pasadena, CA, USA. Erin.E.Hahn@kp.org. 3. Jonsson Comprehensive Cancer Center, University of California Los Angeles, Los Angeles, CA, USA. Erin.E.Hahn@kp.org. 4. Department of Research and Evaluation, Kaiser Permanente Southern California, 100 S. Los Robles Ave, Pasadena, CA, 91101, USA. 5. Southern California Permanente Medical Group, Pasadena, CA, USA. 6. Kaiser Permanente Bernard J. Tyson School of Medicine, Department of Health Systems Science, Pasadena, CA, USA. 7. Kaiser Permanente Bernard J. Tyson School of Medicine, Department of Clinical Science, Pasadena, CA, USA.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Despite significant investment in colorectal cancer (CRC) screening, 40% of US adults are not up-to-date. Commitment devices, which are psychologically tailored approaches to enforce health goals, may be an effective method to increase CRC screening. OBJECTIVE: Compare the effectiveness of a commitment device (patient self-ordering fecal immunochemical test (FIT) kits) to standard CRC screening outreach. DESIGN: A retrospective observational study. PARTICIPANTS: Participants were > 49 years and < 75 years, had no history of CRC, and were eligible for CRC screening. INTERVENTION: An electronic screening reminder with an embedded order button allowed participants to order FIT kits directly from a patient portal. Those who used the order button were promptly sent a kit; those who did not were later mailed kits. MAIN MEASURES: Primary outcome was completion of FIT kits. Secondary outcomes included number of days to completion, completion of follow-up for positive results, and CRC diagnosis; we also examined prior use of FIT kit. We used inverse probability of treatment weights to control for pretreatment imbalances. KEY RESULTS: The cohort comprised 176,231 participants: 53% female; median age was 59; 11% were Asian, 21% Hispanic/Latino, 7% black, 51% White, 3% other/mixed race. Approximately 10% (N = 16,918) used the button. Using inverse probability of treatment weights, we found that those who used the button had 3.8 times the odds of completing a kit compared to participants who did not (odds ratio, 3.77; 95% confidence interval, 3.57-3.98). Within the button group, 63% of those eligible completed a FIT kit in the year prior to the button compared to 87% in the year after the button became available (p < 0.0001). CONCLUSION: The ability to self-order screening kits may act as a commitment device that increases CRC screening. Scalable tools leveraging existing patient portals such as this can complement existing CRC outreach strategies.
BACKGROUND: Despite significant investment in colorectal cancer (CRC) screening, 40% of US adults are not up-to-date. Commitment devices, which are psychologically tailored approaches to enforce health goals, may be an effective method to increase CRC screening. OBJECTIVE: Compare the effectiveness of a commitment device (patient self-ordering fecal immunochemical test (FIT) kits) to standard CRC screening outreach. DESIGN: A retrospective observational study. PARTICIPANTS: Participants were > 49 years and < 75 years, had no history of CRC, and were eligible for CRC screening. INTERVENTION: An electronic screening reminder with an embedded order button allowed participants to order FIT kits directly from a patient portal. Those who used the order button were promptly sent a kit; those who did not were later mailed kits. MAIN MEASURES: Primary outcome was completion of FIT kits. Secondary outcomes included number of days to completion, completion of follow-up for positive results, and CRC diagnosis; we also examined prior use of FIT kit. We used inverse probability of treatment weights to control for pretreatment imbalances. KEY RESULTS: The cohort comprised 176,231 participants: 53% female; median age was 59; 11% were Asian, 21% Hispanic/Latino, 7% black, 51% White, 3% other/mixed race. Approximately 10% (N = 16,918) used the button. Using inverse probability of treatment weights, we found that those who used the button had 3.8 times the odds of completing a kit compared to participants who did not (odds ratio, 3.77; 95% confidence interval, 3.57-3.98). Within the button group, 63% of those eligible completed a FIT kit in the year prior to the button compared to 87% in the year after the button became available (p < 0.0001). CONCLUSION: The ability to self-order screening kits may act as a commitment device that increases CRC screening. Scalable tools leveraging existing patient portals such as this can complement existing CRC outreach strategies.
Entities:
Keywords:
colorectal cancer screening; commitment device; patient portal; patient self-management
Authors: Andrew M D Wolf; Elizabeth T H Fontham; Timothy R Church; Christopher R Flowers; Carmen E Guerra; Samuel J LaMonte; Ruth Etzioni; Matthew T McKenna; Kevin C Oeffinger; Ya-Chen Tina Shih; Louise C Walter; Kimberly S Andrews; Otis W Brawley; Durado Brooks; Stacey A Fedewa; Deana Manassaram-Baptiste; Rebecca L Siegel; Richard C Wender; Robert A Smith Journal: CA Cancer J Clin Date: 2018-05-30 Impact factor: 508.702
Authors: Joanne E Schottinger; Michael H Kanter; Kerry C Litman; Helen Lau; Gary E Schwartz; Farah M Brasfield; Najeeb S Alshak; Louis A Difronzo Journal: Jt Comm J Qual Patient Saf Date: 2016-07
Authors: Courtney R Lyles; Eugene C Nelson; Susan Frampton; Patricia C Dykes; Anupama G Cemballi; Urmimala Sarkar Journal: Ann Intern Med Date: 2020-06-02 Impact factor: 25.391
Authors: Ismael Martínez Nicolás; Benjamin Lê Cook; Michael Flores; Marta Del Olmo Rodriguez; Corazón Hernández Rodríguez; Pilar Llamas Sillero; Enrique Baca-Garcia Journal: Eur J Public Health Date: 2019-06-01 Impact factor: 3.367
Authors: Daniel F McCaffrey; Beth Ann Griffin; Daniel Almirall; Mary Ellen Slaughter; Rajeev Ramchand; Lane F Burgette Journal: Stat Med Date: 2013-03-18 Impact factor: 2.373
Authors: Saee Hamine; Emily Gerth-Guyette; Dunia Faulx; Beverly B Green; Amy Sarah Ginsburg Journal: J Med Internet Res Date: 2015-02-24 Impact factor: 5.428
Authors: Ronald Dendere; Christine Slade; Andrew Burton-Jones; Clair Sullivan; Andrew Staib; Monika Janda Journal: J Med Internet Res Date: 2019-04-11 Impact factor: 5.428