Literature DB >> 8362899

Reducing financial barriers enhances the return rate of stool Hemoccult packets.

M F Miller1, J G Wong.   

Abstract

Patient compliance in returning fecal-hemoccult card packets has been studied in recent years but no specific interventions have been shown consistently to improve the return rate. It was wondered whether removing a small financial barrier for indigent patients would positively affect compliance. Therefore, the effect of prepaid postage on the rate of return was studied. Pre-prepared packets containing hemoccult cards with return envelopes were distributed in a randomized fashion to indigent and private insurance patients in outpatient clinics. On half of the return envelopes return postage was applied. The main outcome measure was the rate of return of stamped and unstamped packets stratified between indigent and private insurance patients. The overall rates of return were 117 of 159 (74%) for the stamped packets and 102 of 166 (61%) for unstamped packets (p < 0.02). After stratification, in the indigent patients (n = 177), 73 of 95 (77%) stamped packets were returned compared to 46 of 82 (56%) unstamped packets (p < 0.006). In the private insurance patients (N = 148), 44 of 64 stamped packets (69%) and 52 of 84 unstamped packets (62%) were returned (p > 0.10). Removing even small financial barriers (eg, providing a postage stamp) can enhance compliance for indigent patients.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  1993        PMID: 8362899     DOI: 10.1097/00000441-199308000-00006

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Am J Med Sci        ISSN: 0002-9629            Impact factor:   2.378


  6 in total

1.  A centralized mailed program with stepped increases of support increases time in compliance with colorectal cancer screening guidelines over 5 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:  Cancer       Date:  2017-07-28       Impact factor: 6.860

Review 2.  Organizational factors and the cancer screening process.

Authors:  Rebecca Anhang Price; Jane Zapka; Heather Edwards; Stephen H Taplin
Journal:  J Natl Cancer Inst Monogr       Date:  2010

3.  Recruiting patients into the CDC's Colorectal Cancer Screening Demonstration Program: strategies and challenges across 5 sites.

Authors:  Jennifer E Boehm; Elizabeth A Rohan; Judith Preissle; Amy DeGroff; Rebecca Glover-Kudon
Journal:  Cancer       Date:  2013-08-01       Impact factor: 6.860

4.  An automated intervention with stepped increases in support to increase uptake of colorectal cancer screening: a randomized trial.

Authors:  Beverly B Green; Ching-Yun Wang; Melissa L Anderson; Jessica Chubak; Richard T Meenan; Sally W Vernon; Sharon Fuller
Journal:  Ann Intern Med       Date:  2013-03-05       Impact factor: 25.391

5.  Influence of primary care use on population delivery of colorectal cancer screening.

Authors:  Joshua J Fenton; Robert J Reid; Laura-Mae Baldwin; Joann G Elmore; Diana S M Buist; Peter Franks
Journal:  Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev       Date:  2009-02-03       Impact factor: 4.254

Review 6.  Public awareness of colorectal cancer screening: knowledge, attitudes, and interventions for increasing screening uptake.

Authors:  Antonio Z Gimeno Garcia; Noemi Hernandez Alvarez Buylla; David Nicolas-Perez; Enrique Quintero
Journal:  ISRN Oncol       Date:  2014-03-05
  6 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.