Effectiveness and Cost of an Enhanced Mailed Fecal Test Outreach Colorectal Cancer Screening Program: Findings from the PROMPT Stepped-Wedge Trial

被引:5
|
作者
Coronado, Gloria D. [1 ]
Nyongesa, Denis B. [1 ]
Escaron, Anne L. [2 ]
Petrik, Amanda F. [1 ]
Thompson, Jamie H. [1 ]
Smith, Dave [1 ]
Davis, Melinda M. [3 ]
Schneider, Jennifer L. [1 ]
Rivelli, Jennifer S. [1 ]
Laguna, Tanya [2 ]
Leo, Michael C. [1 ]
机构
[1] Kaiser Permanente Ctr Hlth Res, 3800 N Interstate Ave, Portland, OR 97227 USA
[2] AltaMed Hlth Serv Corp, Los Angeles, CA USA
[3] Oregon Hlth & Sci Univ, Portland, OR USA
关键词
RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED-TRIAL; COMMUNITY-HEALTH CENTERS; COLON-CANCER; INVITATION STRATEGIES; IMMUNOCHEMICAL TESTS; POPULATION; ADHERENCE; INTERVENTIONS; DESIGN; IMPACT;
D O I
10.1158/1055-9965.EPI-23-0597
中图分类号
R73 [肿瘤学];
学科分类号
100214 ;
摘要
Background: Mailed fecal immunochemical test (FIT) outreach can improve colorectal cancer screening rates, yet little is known about how to optimize these programs for effectiveness and cost.Methods: PROMPT was a pragmatic, stepped-wedge, cluster-randomized effectiveness trial of mailed FIT outreach. Participants in the standard condition were mailed a FIT and received live telephone reminders to return it. Participants in the enhanced condition also received a tailored advance notification (text message or live phone call) and two automated phone call reminders. The primary outcome was 6-month FIT completion; secondary outcomes were any colorectal cancer screening completion at 6 months, implementation, and program costs.Results: The study included 27,585 participants (80% ages 50-64, 82% Hispanic/Latino; 68% preferred Spanish). A higher proportion of enhanced participants completed FIT at 6 months than standard participants, both in intention-to-treat [+2.8%, 95% confidence interval (CI; 0.4-5.2)] and per-protocol [limited to individuals who were reached; +16.9%, 95% CI (12.3-20.3)] analyses. Text messages and automated calls were successfully delivered to 91% to 100% of participants. The per-patient cost for standard mailed FIT was $10.84. The enhanced program's text message plus automated call reminder cost an additional $0.66; live phone calls plus an automated call reminder cost an additional $10.82 per patient.Conclusions: Adding advance notifications and automated calls to a standard mailed FIT program boosted 6-month FIT completion rates at a small additional per-patient cost.Impact: Enhancements to mailed FIT outreach can improve colorectal cancer screening participation. Future research might test the addition of educational video messaging for screening-naive adults.
引用
收藏
页码:1608 / 1616
页数:9
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [21] Effectiveness of a therapeutic patient education program in improving cancer pain management: EFFADOL, a stepped-wedge randomised controlled trial
    Prevost, Virginie
    Heutte, Natacha
    Leconte, Alexandra
    Licaj, Idlir
    Delorme, Claire
    Clarisse, Benedicte
    BMC CANCER, 2019, 19 (1)
  • [22] Effectiveness of a therapeutic patient education program in improving cancer pain management: EFFADOL, a stepped-wedge randomised controlled trial
    Virginie Prevost
    Natacha Heutte
    Alexandra Leconte
    Idlir Licaj
    Claire Delorme
    Bénédicte Clarisse
    BMC Cancer, 19
  • [23] Effect of Colonoscopy Outreach vs Fecal Immunochemical Test Outreach on Colorectal Cancer Screening Completion A Randomized Clinical Trial
    Singal, Amit G.
    Gupta, Samir
    Skinner, Celette Sugg
    Ahn, Chul
    Santini, Noel O.
    Agrawal, Deepak
    Mayorga, Christian A.
    Murphy, Caitlin
    Tiro, Jasmin A.
    McCallister, Katharine
    Sanders, Joanne M.
    Bishop, Wendy Pechero
    Loewen, Adam C.
    Halm, Ethan A.
    JAMA-JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN MEDICAL ASSOCIATION, 2017, 318 (09): : 806 - 815
  • [24] Comparison of Outreach and Inreach Approaches in a Nationwide Colorectal Cancer Screening Program Using the Fecal Immunochemical Test
    Lee, Yi-Chia
    Chiu, Han-Mo
    Chou, Chu-Kuang
    Wu, Ming-Shiang
    GASTROENTEROLOGY, 2015, 148 (04) : S784 - S784
  • [25] PROSPECTIVE COST-ACCOUNTING OF AN OUTREACH PROGRAM TO INCREASE FECAL IMMUNOCHEMICAL TEST (FIT)-BASED COLORECTAL CANCER (CRC) SCREENING AMONG UNDERINSURED PERSONS IN A RANDOMIZED TRIAL
    Ladabaum, Uri
    Mannalithara, Ajitha
    Rachocki, Carly
    Laleau, Victoria
    Garcia, Dianne
    Chen, Ellen
    Grimes, Barbara
    Vittinghoff, Eric
    Somsouk, Ma
    GASTROENTEROLOGY, 2017, 152 (05) : S75 - S75
  • [26] Improving colorectal cancer screening in rural primary care: Preliminary effectiveness and implementation of a collaborative mailed fecal immunochemical test pilot
    Davis, Melinda M.
    Coury, Jen
    Larson, Jean Hiebert
    Gunn, Rose
    Towey, Elke Geiger
    Ketelhut, Andrea
    Patzel, Mary
    Ramsey, Katrina
    Coronado, Gloria D.
    JOURNAL OF RURAL HEALTH, 2023, 39 (01): : 279 - 290
  • [27] Cost-Effectiveness of Mass Screening for Colorectal Cancer: Choice of Fecal Occult Blood Test and Screening Strategy
    Sobhani, Iradj
    Alzahouri, Kazem
    Ghout, Idir
    Charles, Delchier Jean
    Durand-Zaleski, Isabelle
    DISEASES OF THE COLON & RECTUM, 2011, 54 (07) : 876 - 886
  • [28] Effectiveness of a Mailed Colorectal Cancer Screening Outreach Program in Community Health Clinics: The STOP CRC Cluster Randomized Clinical Trial (vol 178, pg 1174, 2018)
    Coronado, G. D.
    Petrik, A. F.
    Vollmer, W. M.
    JAMA INTERNAL MEDICINE, 2019, 179 (07) : 1007 - 1007
  • [29] Predictive Modeling of Colonoscopic Findings in a Fecal Immunochemical Test-Based Colorectal Cancer Screening Program
    Jade Law
    Anand Rajan
    Harry Trieu
    John Azizian
    Rani Berry
    Simon W. Beaven
    James H. Tabibian
    Digestive Diseases and Sciences, 2022, 67 : 2842 - 2848
  • [30] Comparative cost-effectiveness of mailed fecal immunochemical testing (FIT)-based interventions for increasing colorectal cancer screening in the medicaid population
    Wheeler, Stephanie B.
    O'Leary, Meghan C.
    Rhode, Jewels
    Yang, Jeff Y.
    Drechsel, Rebecca
    Plescia, Marcus
    Reuland, Daniel S.
    Brenner, Alison T.
    CANCER, 2020, 126 (18) : 4197 - 4208