Dataset Information

Get screened: a pragmatic randomized controlled trial to increase mammography and colorectal cancer screening in a large, safety net practice.

ABSTRACT: Most randomized controlled trials of interventions designed to promote cancer screening, particularly those targeting poor and minority patients, enroll selected patients. Relatively little is known about the benefits of these interventions among unselected patients."Get Screened" is an American Cancer Society-sponsored randomized controlled trial designed to promote mammography and colorectal cancer screening in a primary care practice serving low-income patients. Eligible patients who are past due for mammography or colorectal cancer screening are entered into a tracking registry and randomly assigned to early or delayed intervention. This 6-month intervention is multimodal, involving patient prompts, clinician prompts, and outreach. At the time of the patient visit, eligible patients receive a low-literacy patient education tool. At the same time, clinicians receive a prompt to remind them to order the test and, when appropriate, a tool designed to simplify colorectal cancer screening decision-making. Patient outreach consists of personalized letters, automated telephone reminders, assistance with scheduling, and linkage of uninsured patients to the local National Breast and Cervical Cancer Early Detection program. Interventions are repeated for patients who fail to respond to early interventions. We will compare rates of screening between randomized groups, as well as planned secondary analyses of minority patients and uninsured patients. Data from the pilot phase show that this multimodal intervention triples rates of cancer screening (adjusted odds ratio 3.63; 95% CI 2.35 - 5.61).This study protocol is designed to assess a multimodal approach to promotion of breast and colorectal cancer screening among underserved patients. We hypothesize that a multimodal approach will significantly improve cancer screening rates.The trial was registered at Clinical Trials.gov NCT00818857.

SUBMITTER: Fiscella K

PROVIDER: S-EPMC2955650 | biostudies-literature | 2010 Sep

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Get screened: a pragmatic randomized controlled trial to increase mammography and colorectal cancer screening in a large, safety net practice.

Fiscella Kevin K Yosha Amanat A Hendren Samantha K SK Humiston Sharon S Winters Paul P Ford Pat P Loader Starlene S Specht Raymond R Pope Shirley S Adris Amna A Marcus Steven S

BMC health services research 20100923

<h4>Background</h4>Most randomized controlled trials of interventions designed to promote cancer screening, particularly those targeting poor and minority patients, enroll selected patients. Relatively little is known about the benefits of these interventions among unselected patients.<h4>Methods/design</h4>"Get Screened" is an American Cancer Society-sponsored randomized controlled trial designed to promote mammography and colorectal cancer screening in a primary care practice serving low-incom ...[more]

PMID: 20863395

Similar Datasets

Project description:ContextLow-income and racial/ethnic minority populations experience disproportionate colorectal cancer (CRC) burden and poorer survival. Novel behavioral strategies are needed to improve screening rates in these groups.BackgroundThe study aimed to test a theoretically based "implementation intentions" intervention for improving CRC screening among unscreened adults in urban safety-net clinics.DesignRandomized controlled trial.Setting/participantsAdults (N=470) aged ≥50 years, due for CRC screening, from urban safety-net clinics were recruited.InterventionThe intervention (conducted in 2009-2011) was delivered via touchscreen computers that tailored informational messages to decisional stage and screening barriers. The computer then randomized participants to generic health information on diet and exercise (Comparison group) or "implementation intentions" questions and planning (Experimental group) specific to the CRC screening test chosen (fecal immunochemical test or colonoscopy).Main outcome measuresThe primary study outcome was completion of CRC screening at 26 weeks based on test reports (analysis conducted in 2012-2013).ResultsThe study population had a mean age of 57 years and was 42% non-Hispanic African American, 28% non-Hispanic white, and 27% Hispanic. Those receiving the implementation intentions-based intervention had higher odds (AOR=1.83, 95% CI=1.23, 2.73) of completing CRC screening than the Comparison group. Those with higher self-efficacy for screening (AOR=1.57, 95% CI=1.03, 2.39), history of asthma (AOR=2.20, 95% CI=1.26, 3.84), no history of diabetes (AOR=1.86, 95% CI=1.21, 2.86), and reporting they had never heard that "cutting on cancer" makes it spread (AOR=1.78, 95% CI=1.16, 2.72) were more likely to complete CRC screening.ConclusionsThe results of this study suggest that programs incorporating an implementation intentions approach can contribute to successful completion of CRC screening even among very low-income and diverse primary care populations. Future initiatives to reduce CRC incidence and mortality disparities may be able to employ implementation intentions in large-scale efforts to encourage screening and prevention behaviors.

Project description:The Plan-Do-Study-Act (PDSA) cycle is a commonly used improvement process in health care settings, although its documented use in pragmatic clinical research is rare. A recent pragmatic clinical research study, called the Strategies and Opportunities to STOP Colon Cancer in Priority Populations (STOP CRC), used this process to optimize the research implementation of an automated colon cancer screening outreach program in intervention clinics. We describe the process of using this PDSA approach, the selection of PDSA topics by clinic leaders, and project leaders' reactions to using PDSA in pragmatic research.STOP CRC is a cluster-randomized pragmatic study that aims to test the effectiveness of a direct-mail fecal immunochemical testing (FIT) program involving eight Federally Qualified Health Centers in Oregon and California. We and a practice improvement specialist trained in the PDSA process delivered structured presentations to leaders of these centers; the presentations addressed how to apply the PDSA process to improve implementation of a mailed outreach program offering colorectal cancer screening through FIT tests. Center leaders submitted PDSA plans and delivered reports via webinar at quarterly meetings of the project's advisory board. Project staff conducted one-on-one, 45-min interviews with project leads from each health center to assess the reaction to and value of the PDSA process in supporting the implementation of STOP CRC.Clinic-selected PDSA activities included refining the intervention staffing model, improving outreach materials, and changing workflow steps. Common benefits of using PDSA cycles in pragmatic research were that it provided a structure for staff to focus on improving the program and it allowed staff to test the change they wanted to see. A commonly reported challenge was measuring the success of the PDSA process with the available electronic medical record tools.Understanding how the PDSA process can be applied to pragmatic trials and the reaction of clinic staff to their use may help clinics integrate evidence-based interventions into their everyday care processes.Clinicaltrials.gov NCT01742065 . Registered October 31, 2013.

Project description:BackgroundLower mammography screening rates among minority and low income women contribute to increased morbidity and mortality from breast cancer.ObjectiveTo evaluate the effect of a patient navigation intervention on adherence rates to biennial screening mammography among women engaged in primary care at an inner-city academic medical center.DesignQuality improvement intervention with a concurrent control group, conducted from February to November of 2008.Study subjectsAll women in a hospital-based primary care practice aged 51-70 years. Subjects were randomized at the level of their primary care provider, such that half of the patients in the practice received the intervention, while the other half received usual care.InterventionsIntervention subjects whose last mammogram was >18 months prior received a combination of telephone calls and reminder letters from patient navigators trained to identify barriers to care. Navigators were integrated into primary care teams and interacted directly with patients, providers, and radiology to coordinate care. Navigators utilized an electronic report to track subjects. Adherence rates to biennial mammography were assessed in intervention and control groups at baseline and post-intervention.Key resultsA total of 3,895 women were randomized to intervention (n = 1,817) and control (n = 2,078) groups. Mean age was 60, 71% were racial/ethnic minorities, 23% were non-English speaking, and 63% had public or no health insurance. At baseline, there was no difference in mammography adherence between the control and intervention groups (78%, respectively, p = 0.55). After the 9-month intervention, mammogram adherence was higher in the intervention group compared with the control group (87% vs. 76%, respectively, p < 0.001). Except among Hispanic women who demonstrated high rates in both the intervention and control groups (85% and 83%, respectively), all racial/ethnic and insurance groups demonstrated higher adherence in the intervention group.ConclusionsPatient navigation improves biennial mammography rates for inner city, low income, minority populations.

Project description:Chinese translationBlack persons are more likely than white persons to be diagnosed with colorectal cancer and to die from it. The extent to which genetic or biological factors versus disparities in screening rates explain this variance remains controversial.To define the prevalence and location of presymptomatic advanced colorectal neoplasia (ACN) among white and black persons undergoing screening colonoscopy, controlling for other epidemiologic risk factors.Cross-sectional survey between 22 March 2005 and 31 January 2012.Urban, open-access, academic, safety-net hospital in Massachusetts.Asymptomatic, average-risk white (n = 1172) and black (n = 1681) persons aged 50 to 79 years undergoing screening colonoscopy.Adjusted prevalence and location of ACN, defined as a tubular adenoma 10 mm or more in size, any adenoma with villous features or high-grade dysplasia, any dysplastic serrated lesion, or invasive cancer.The prevalence of ACN was higher among white patients than black patients (6.8% vs. 5.0%; P = 0.039) but varied by sex (white vs. black men, 9.3% vs. 5.7%; white vs. black women, 3.5% vs. 4.3%; interaction P = 0.034). After controlling for many risk factors, black men were 41% less likely than white men (adjusted odds ratio [AOR], 0.59 [95% CI, 0.39 to 0.89]) to have ACN. No statistically significant difference was seen for women (AOR, 1.32 [CI, 0.73 to 2.40]). Black patients with ACN had a higher percentage of proximal disease (52% vs. 39%) after adjustment for age and sex (P = 0.055).Single-institution study with inadequate statistical power for subgroup analyses and recall bias.Black men are less likely than white men to have ACN at screening colonoscopy in a safety-net health care setting. Disparities in access to screening and differential exposure to modifiable risk factors rather than genetic or biological factors may be largely responsible for the higher incidence of CRC among black men. Genetic or biological factors may explain the predilection for proximal disease.

Project description:Cancer screening rates are suboptimal for low-income patients.To assess an intervention to increase cancer screening among patients in a safety-net primary care practice.Patients at an inner-city family practice who were overdue for cancer screening were randomized to intervention or usual care. Screening rates at 1 year were compared using the chi-square test, and multivariable analysis was performed to adjust for patient factors.All average-risk patients at an inner-city family practice overdue for mammography or colorectal cancer (CRC) screening. Patients' ages were 40 to 74 years (mean 53.9, SD 8.7) including 40.8 % African Americans, 4.2 % Latinos, 23.2 % with Medicaid and 10.9 % without any form of insurance.The 6-month intervention to promote cancer screening included letters, automated phone calls, prompts and a mailed Fecal Immunochemical Testing (FIT) Kit.Rates of cancer screening at 1 year.Three hundred sixty-six patients overdue for screening were randomly assigned to intervention (n?=?185) or usual care (n?=?181). Primary analysis revealed significantly higher rates of cancer screening in intervention subjects: 29.7 % vs. 16.7 % for mammography (p?=?0.034) and 37.7 % vs. 16.7 % for CRC screening (p?=?0.0002). In the intervention group, 20 % of mammography screenings and 9.3 % of CRC screenings occurred at the early assessment, while the remainder occurred after repeated interventions. Within the CRC intervention group 44 % of screened patients used the mailed FIT kit. On multivariable analysis the CRC screening rates remained significantly higher in the intervention group, while the breast cancer screening rates were not statistically different.A multimodal intervention significantly increased CRC screening rates among patients in a safety-net primary care practice. These results suggest that relatively inexpensive letters and automated calls can be combined for a larger effect. Results also suggest that mailed screening kits may be a promising way to increase average-risk CRC screening.

Dataset Information

Get screened: a pragmatic randomized controlled trial to increase mammography and colorectal cancer screening in a large, safety net practice.

Publications

Get screened: a pragmatic randomized controlled trial to increase mammography and colorectal cancer screening in a large, safety net practice.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets