Dataset Information

Alternative approaches to assessing intervention effectiveness in randomized trials: application in a colorectal cancer screening study.

ABSTRACT: Previous analysis of a randomized community-based trial of a multi-component intervention to increase colorectal cancer (CRC) screening among Filipino Americans (n = 548) found significantly higher screening rates in the two intervention groups compared to the control group, when using intent-to-treat analysis and self-reported screening as the outcome. This report describes more nuanced findings obtained from alternative approaches to assessing intervention effectiveness to inform future intervention implementation.The effect of the intervention on CRC screening receipt during follow-up was estimated using methods that adjusted for biases due to missing data and self-report and for different combinations of intervention components. Adjustment for self-report used data from a validation substudy. Effectiveness within demographic subgroups was also examined.Analyses accounting for self-report bias and missing data supported the effectiveness of the intervention. The intervention was also broadly effective across the demographic characteristics of the sample. Estimates of the intervention effect were highest among participants whose providers received a letter as part of the intervention.The findings increase confidence that the intervention could be broadly effective at increasing CRC screening in this population. Subgroup analyses and attempts to deconstruct multi-component interventions can provide important information for future intervention development, implementation, and dissemination.

SUBMITTER: Maxwell AE

PROVIDER: S-EPMC3148350 | biostudies-literature | 2011 Sep

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Alternative approaches to assessing intervention effectiveness in randomized trials: application in a colorectal cancer screening study.

Maxwell Annette E AE Crespi Catherine M CM Danao Leda L LL Antonio Cynthia C Garcia Gabriel M GM Bastani Roshan R

Cancer causes & control : CCC 20110616 9

<h4>Background</h4>Previous analysis of a randomized community-based trial of a multi-component intervention to increase colorectal cancer (CRC) screening among Filipino Americans (n = 548) found significantly higher screening rates in the two intervention groups compared to the control group, when using intent-to-treat analysis and self-reported screening as the outcome. This report describes more nuanced findings obtained from alternative approaches to assessing intervention effectiveness to i ...[more]

PMID: 21678032

Similar Datasets

Project description:BACKGROUND:The per-protocol effect is the effect that would have been observed in a randomized trial had everybody followed the protocol. Though obtaining a valid point estimate for the per-protocol effect requires assumptions that are unverifiable and often implausible, lower and upper bounds for the per-protocol effect may be estimated under more plausible assumptions. Strategies for obtaining bounds, known as "partial identification" methods, are especially promising in randomized trials. RESULTS:We estimated bounds for the per-protocol effect of colorectal cancer screening in the Norwegian Colorectal Cancer Prevention trial, a randomized trial of one-time sigmoidoscopy screening in 98,792 men and women aged 50-64 years. The screening was not available to the control arm, while approximately two thirds of individuals in the treatment arm attended the screening. Study outcomes included colorectal cancer incidence and mortality over 10 years of follow-up. Without any assumptions, the data alone provide little information about the size of the effect. Under the assumption that randomization had no effect on the outcome except through screening, a point estimate for the risk under no screening and bounds for the risk under screening are achievable. Thus, the 10-year risk difference for colorectal cancer was estimated to be at least -0.6 % but less than 37.0 %. Bounds for the risk difference for colorectal cancer mortality (-0.2 to 37.4 %) and all-cause mortality (-5.1 to 32.6 %) had similar widths. These bounds appear helpful in quantifying the maximum possible effectiveness, but cannot rule out harm. By making further assumptions about the effect in the subpopulation who would not attend screening regardless of their randomization arm, narrower bounds can be achieved. CONCLUSIONS:Bounding the per-protocol effect under several sets of assumptions illuminates our reliance on unverifiable assumptions, highlights the range of effect sizes we are most confident in, and can sometimes demonstrate whether to expect certain subpopulations to receive more benefit or harm than others. TRIAL REGISTRATION:Clinicaltrials.gov identifier NCT00119912 (registered 6 July 2005).

Project description:Background and aimsCurrent guidelines recommend colonoscopy every 3-5 years for colorectal cancer (CRC) screening of individuals with a familial history of CRC. The objective of this study was to compare the cost effectiveness of screening alternatives in this population.MethodsEight screening strategies were compared with no screening: fecal immunochemical test (FIT), Stool DNA and blood-based screening every 2 years, colonoscopy, computed tomography colonography, colon capsules, and sigmoidoscopy every 5 years, and colonoscopy at 45 years followed, if negative, by FIT every 2 years. Screening test and procedures performance were obtained from the literature. A microsimulation model reproducing the natural history of CRC was used to estimate the cost (€2018) and effectiveness [quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs)] of each strategy. A lifetime horizon was used. Costs and effectiveness were discounted at 3.5% annually.ResultsCompared with no screening, colonoscopy and sigmoidoscopy at a 30% uptake were the most effective strategy (46.3 and 43.9 QALY/1000). FIT at a 30 µg/g threshold with 30% uptake was only half as effective (25.7 QALY). Colonoscopy was associated with a cost of €484,000 per 1000 individuals whereas sigmoidoscopy and FIT were associated with much lower costs (€123,610 and €66,860). Incremental cost-effectiveness rate for FIT and sigmoidoscopy were €2600/QALY (versus no screening) and €3100/QALY (versus FIT), respectively, whereas it was €150,000/QALY for colonoscopy (versus sigmoidoscopy). With a lower threshold (10 µg/g) and a higher uptake of 45%, FIT was more effective and less costly than colonoscopy at a 30% uptake and was associated with an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of €4240/QALY versus no screening.ConclusionAt 30% uptake, current screening is the most effective screening strategy for high-risk individuals but is associated with a high ICER. Sigmoidoscopy and FIT at lower thresholds (10 µg/g) and a higher uptake should be given consideration as cost-effective alternatives.Plain language summaryCost-effectiveness analysis of colorectal cancer screening strategies in high-risk individuals Fecal occult blood testing with an immunochemical test (FIT) is generally considered as the most cost-effective alternative in colorectal cancer screening programs for average risk individuals without family history.Current screening guidelines for high-risk individuals with familial history recommend colonoscopy every 3-5 years.Colonoscopy every 3-5 years for individuals with familial history is the most effective strategy but is associated with a high incremental cost-effectiveness ratio.Compared with colonoscopy, if screening based on FIT is associated with a higher participation rate, it can achieve a similar effectiveness at a lower cost.

Project description:BACKGROUND:Colorectal cancer (CRC) screening rates remain suboptimal, particularly in low-income and underserved populations. Mailed fecal immunochemical testing (FIT) may overcome common barriers to screening; however, the effect of mailed FIT kits may differ across important subpopulations. The goal of the current study was to examine sociodemographic and health-related factors that moderate the effect of an intervention of automated direct mail of FIT kits at health clinics serving low-income populations. METHODS:This study is a secondary analysis of the Strategies and Opportunities to Stop Colon Cancer in Priority Populations (STOP CRC) study, a cluster-randomized pragmatic trial to increase uptake of CRC screening in patients seen at federally qualified health centers. The intervention involved tools embedded in the electronic medical records to enable participating clinics to mail FIT kits and related materials to eligible participants. We examined the rate of FIT completion by potential moderating characteristics using electronic health record data supplemented by the American Community Survey and the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services Geographic Variation datasets, linked via geocoding to patients' addresses. All patients aged 50-75 seen in participating health clinics who were eligible for CRC screening were included. RESULTS:Although not always statistically significant, we saw a consistent pattern of increased FIT return rates among intervention participants compared to control participants across all subgroups studied, with incidence rate ratios (IRRs) generally ranging from 1.25 to 1.50. FIT completion in the intervention group ranged from 15 and 20% across subpopulations, typically three to six percentage points higher than the control group participants. The only moderator with a statistically significant interaction was race: persons of Asian descent showed a twofold response to the intervention (adjusted incidence rate ratio [aIRR] = 2.06, 95% confidence interval 1.41 to 3.00). CONCLUSIONS:Response to a mailed FIT intervention was generally consistent across a wide range of individual and neighborhood-level patient characteristics, including typically underserved patients and those in low-resource communities. TRIAL REGISTRATION:ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT01742065. Registered on 5 December 2012.

Dataset Information

Alternative approaches to assessing intervention effectiveness in randomized trials: application in a colorectal cancer screening study.

Publications

Alternative approaches to assessing intervention effectiveness in randomized trials: application in a colorectal cancer screening study.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets