Dataset Information

Nonparticipation in a population-based trial to increase colorectal cancer screening.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Many trials have tested different strategies to increase colorectal cancer (CRC) screening. Few describe whether participants are representative of the population from which they are recruited.

Purpose

To determine risk factors related to nonparticipation among patients enrolled in an integrated health plan and not up to date for CRC testing, in a trial to increase screening rates.

Methods

Between July 2008 and October 2009, a total of 15,000 adults aged 50-74 years from 21 clinics in Washington State who were due for CRC screening were contacted. Nonparticipants were defined as English-speaking patients who did not engage in the call or refused participation while still potentially eligible. Log-binomial regression models were used to estimate the relative risk of nonparticipation. Analyses were completed between October 2010 and June 2011.

Results

Patients who were nonwhite, had less education, used tobacco, had less continuity of care, and had lower rates of preventive care and cancer screening were more likely to be nonparticipants. Patients reporting never having received any type of CRC testing or screening were also more likely not to participate (62% of nonparticipants vs 46% of participants; adjusted RR=1.58, 95% CI=1.47, 1.70). Reasons for refusal included costs, risks of procedures, and not wanting their medical records reviewed.

Conclusions

Patients eligible for but not participating in the trial were more likely to be from minority socioeconomic and racial groups and had behaviors that can negatively affect cancer outcomes. Additional efforts are needed to recruit patients who need CRC screening the most.

Trial registration

This trial is registered at clinicaltrials.gov NCT 00697047.

SUBMITTER: Green BB

PROVIDER: S-EPMC3549634 | biostudies-literature | 2012 Apr

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Nonparticipation in a population-based trial to increase colorectal cancer screening.

Green Beverly B BB Bogart Andy A Chubak Jessica J Vernon Sally W SW Morales Leo S LS Meenan Richard T RT Laing Sharon S SS Fuller Sharon S Ko Cynthia C Wang Ching-Yun CY

American journal of preventive medicine 20120401 4

<h4>Background</h4>Many trials have tested different strategies to increase colorectal cancer (CRC) screening. Few describe whether participants are representative of the population from which they are recruited.<h4>Purpose</h4>To determine risk factors related to nonparticipation among patients enrolled in an integrated health plan and not up to date for CRC testing, in a trial to increase screening rates.<h4>Methods</h4>Between July 2008 and October 2009, a total of 15,000 adults aged 50-74 ye ...[more]

PMID: 22424252

Similar Datasets

Project description:ImportanceAlthough some countries have implemented widespread colonoscopy screening, most European countries have not introduced it because of uncertainty regarding participation rates, procedure-related pain and discomfort, endoscopist performance, and effectiveness. To our knowledge, no randomized trials on colonoscopy screening currently exist.ObjectiveTo investigate participation rate, adenoma yield, performance, and adverse events of population-based colonoscopy screening in several European countries.Design, setting, and populationA population-based randomized clinical trial was conducted among 94 959 men and women aged 55 to 64 years of average risk for colon cancer in Poland, Norway, the Netherlands, and Sweden from June 8, 2009, to June 23, 2014.InterventionsColonoscopy screening or no screening.Main outcomes and measuresParticipation in colonoscopy screening, cancer and adenoma yield, and participant experience. Study outcomes were compared by country and endoscopist.ResultsOf 31 420 eligible participants randomized to the colonoscopy group, 12 574 (40.0%) underwent screening. Participation rates were 60.7% in Norway (5354 of 8816), 39.8% in Sweden (486 of 1222), 33.0% in Poland (6004 of 18 188), and 22.9% in the Netherlands (730 of 3194) (P < .001). The cecum intubation rate was 97.2% (12 217 of 12 574), with 9726 participants (77.4%) not receiving sedation. Of the 12 574 participants undergoing colonoscopy screening, we observed 1 perforation (0.01%), 2 postpolypectomy serosal burns (0.02%), and 18 cases of bleeding owing to polypectomy (0.14%). Sixty-two individuals (0.5%) were diagnosed with colorectal cancer and 3861 (30.7%) had adenomas, of which 1304 (10.4%) were high-risk adenomas. Detection rates were similar in the proximal and distal colon. Performance differed significantly between endoscopists; recommended benchmarks for cecal intubation (95%) and adenoma detection (25%) were not met by 6 (17.1%) and 10 of 35 endoscopists (28.6%), respectively. Moderate or severe abdominal pain after colonoscopy was reported by 601 of 3611 participants (16.7%) examined with standard air insufflation vs 214 of 5144 participants (4.2%) examined with carbon dioxide (CO2) insufflation (P < .001).Conclusions and relevanceColonoscopy screening entails high detection rates in the proximal and distal colon. Participation rates and endoscopist performance vary significantly. Postprocedure abdominal pain is common with standard air insufflation and can be significantly reduced by using CO2.Trial registrationclinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT00883792.

Project description:Colorectal cancer is an important public health problem in Spain. Over the last decade, several regions have carried out screening programmes, but population participation rates remain below recommended European goals. Reminders on electronic medical records have been identified as a low-cost and high-reach strategy to increase participation. Further knowledge is needed about their effect in a population-based screening programme. The main aim of this study is to evaluate the effectiveness of an electronic reminder to promote the participation in a population-based colorectal cancer screening programme. Secondary aims are to learn population's reasons for refusing to take part in the screening programme and to find out the health professionals' opinion about the official programme implementation and on the new computerised tool.This is a parallel randomised trial with a cross-sectional second stage.all the invited subjects to participate in the public colorectal cancer screening programme that includes men and women aged between 50-69, allocated to the eleven primary care centres of the study and all their health professionals. The randomisation unit will be the primary care physician. The intervention will consist of activating an electronic reminder, in the patient's electronic medical record, in order to promote colorectal cancer screening, during a synchronous medical appointment, throughout the year that the intervention takes place. A comparison of the screening rates will then take place, using the faecal occult blood test of the patients from the control and the intervention groups. We will also take a questionnaire to know the opinions of the health professionals. The main outcome is the screening status at the end of the study. Data will be analysed with an intention-to-treat approach.We expect that the introduction of specific reminders in electronic medical records, as a tool to facilitate and encourage direct referral by physicians and nurse practitioners to perform colorectal cancer screening will mean an increase in participation of the target population. The introduction of this new software tool will have good acceptance and increase compliance with recommendations from health professionals.Clinical Trials.gov identifier NCT01877018.

Project description:Importance:Colorectal cancer screening rates are suboptimal, particularly among sociodemographically disadvantaged groups. Objective:To examine whether guaranteed money or probabilistic lottery financial incentives conditional on completion of colorectal cancer screening increase screening uptake, particularly among groups with lower screening rates. Design, Setting, and Participants:This parallel, 3-arm randomized clinical trial was conducted from March 13, 2017, through April 12, 2018, at 21 medical centers in an integrated health care system in western Washington. A total of 838 age-eligible patients overdue for colorectal cancer screening who completed a questionnaire that confirmed eligibility and included sociodemographic and psychosocial questions were enrolled. Interventions:Interventions were (1) mail only (n = 284; up to 3 mailings that included information on the importance of colorectal cancer screening and screening test choices, a fecal immunochemical test [FIT], and a reminder letter if necessary), (2) mail and monetary (n = 270; mailings plus guaranteed $10 on screening completion), or (3) mail and lottery (n = 284; mailings plus a 1 in 10 chance of receiving $50 on screening completion). Main Outcomes and Measures:The primary outcome was completion of any colorectal cancer screening within 6 months of randomization. Secondary outcomes were FIT or colonoscopy completion within 6 months of randomization. Intervention effects were compared across sociodemographic subgroups and self-reported psychosocial measures. Results:A total of 838 participants (mean [SD] age, 59.7 [7.2] years; 546 [65.2%] female; 433 [52.2%] white race and 101 [12.1%] Hispanic ethnicity) were included in the study. Completion of any colorectal screening was not significantly higher for the mail and monetary group (207 of 270 [76.7%]) or the mail and lottery group (212 of 284 [74.6%]) than for the mail only group (203 of 284 [71.5%]) (P = .11). For FIT completion, interventions had a statistically significant effect (P = .04), with a net increase of 7.7% (95% CI, 0.3%-15.1%) in the mail and monetary group and 7.1% (95% CI, -0.2% to 14.3%) in the mail and lottery group compared with the mail only group. For patients with Medicaid insurance, the net increase compared with mail only in FIT completion for the mail and monetary or the mail and lottery group was 37.7% (95% CI, 11.0%-64.3%) (34.2% for the mail and monetary group and 40.4% for the mail and lottery group) compared with a net increase of only 5.6% (95% CI, -0.9% to 12.2%) among those not Medicaid insured (test for interaction P = .03). Conclusions and Relevance:Financial incentives increased FIT uptake but not overall colorectal cancer screening. Financial incentives may decrease screening disparities among some sociodemographically disadvantaged groups. Trial Registration:ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT00697047.

Project description:BackgroundAsian Americans have lower colorectal cancer (CRC) screening rates than non-Hispanic white individuals. Hmong Americans have limited socioeconomic resources and literacy. The current randomized controlled trial was conducted to determine whether bilingual/bicultural lay health educator (LHE) education could increase CRC screening among Hmong Americans.MethodsA cluster randomized controlled trial was conducted among Hmong Americans in Sacramento, California. LHEs and recruited participants were randomized to intervention or control groups. The intervention group received CRC education over 3 months delivered by an LHE. The control group received education regarding nutrition and physical activity delivered by a health educator. The outcomes were changes in self-reported ever-screening and up-to-date CRC screening after 6 months.ResultsAll 329 participants were foreign-born with mostly no formal education, limited English proficiency, and no employment. The majority of the participants were insured and had a regular source of health care. The intervention group experienced greater changes after the intervention than the control group for ever-screening (P = .068) and being up-to-date with screening (P<.0001). In multivariable regression analyses, the intervention group demonstrated a greater increase than the control group in reporting ever-screening (adjusted odds ratio, 1.73; 95% confidence interval, 1.07-2.79) and being up-to-date with screening (adjusted odds ratio, 1.71; 95% confidence interval, 1.26-2.32). Individuals who had health insurance were found to have >4 times the odds of receiving screening, both ever-screening and up-to-date screening. A higher CRC knowledge score mediated the intervention effect for both screening outcomes.ConclusionsA culturally and linguistically appropriate educational intervention delivered by trained LHEs was found to increase CRC screening in an immigrant population with low levels of education, employment, English proficiency, and literacy. Cancer 2017;98-106. © 2016 American Cancer Society.

Dataset Information

Nonparticipation in a population-based trial to increase colorectal cancer screening.

Background

Purpose

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Trial registration

Publications

Nonparticipation in a population-based trial to increase colorectal cancer screening.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets